Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Casino Licences

Edward Leigh: What the trend in applications for new casino licences under the Gaming Act 1968 has been over the past 12 months.

Richard Caborn: The Gambling Commission received 43 applications under the Gaming Act 1968 for certificates of consent in respect of new casinos during 2005–06 compared with 25 in 2004–05. On 10 November 2005, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced her intention to set a final date for such applications. We are currently consulting on a draft order, which will give effect to that commitment from 28 April 2006.

Edward Leigh: Given that it is estimated that there are more than 300,000 problem addicts in the UK and that many of the people who will use the new regional casinos will be those who are least able to pay gambling debts, how soon after the first regional casino is opened will the Government institute an assessment of that casino's impact on problem gambling?

Richard Caborn: That is not quite the same question, but I shall answer it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, only one regional casino will be set up, because the Opposition insisted that the figure be reduced from eight to one before the election. We are currently consulting on where the regional casino should be sited in the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: The north-west.

Richard Caborn: I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). A prevalence study will be undertaken every three years, and we are currently examining the data on problem gambling. The UK has the toughest regime on gambling, and we shall retain it. The Budd report led to the development of a trust to examine the issues around problem gambling to which the industry is contributing £3 million a year. If the voluntary approach is not successful, the legislation contains reserved powers that allow the introduction of a statutory levy. Indeed, we will take the matter in-house to the Gambling Commission, if it is necessary to do so. Our regime on problem gambling is the strictest in the world.

Diane Abbott: Sun Casinos has proposed the setting up of a casino in east London. Much as I would welcome any jobs created by such a development, the Minister will be aware of local people's concern about the crime that inevitably accompanies such casinos. Will he provide an assurance that the regulations are stringent?

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, setting up a casino, whether it is large or small, involves a twofold licensing process. A casino requires a licence from the Gambling Commission and, importantly, a premises licence and planning permission from the local authority. If a local authority does not want a casino to open in its area, that casino will not open.

John Whittingdale: Given the increased opportunities for casinos, particularly since the increase in permitted stakes and prizes for gaming machines in casinos, does the Minister agree that that makes it all the more important to implement the recommendations of the Gaming Board on category C machines outside casinos? When does he intend to implement those recommendations?

Richard Caborn: My officials are currently engaged in dialogue with the industry on stakes and prizes. We are not prepared to go any further on liberalisation until we receive clear assurances on the conditions laid down in the Gambling Act 2005 that the vulnerable—particularly children—will be protected and that the industry will be crime free.

Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend say how many local authorities, and in particular how many Conservative local authorities, have asked for a change in the Government's policy? A regional casino is being prepared in Coventry, subject to Government approval.

Richard Caborn: Many local authorities have asked for such a change. A few days ago, the front page of the Financial Times seemed to indicate shifting sands, so far as the Opposition are concerned. I was interested to read that the Opposition are prepared to revisit the issue of the number of regional casinos, and it would be interesting if they were to let us know how far they would go with liberalisation.

Don Foster: Does the Minister realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on uprating stakes and prizes for category C and D machines is a terrible blow for all those who run family entertainment centres, where more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the past 12 months alone? Will he acknowledge that the industry has provided him with a great deal of evidence over the past few months, and will he make a statement on the issue in the next two or three weeks?

Richard Caborn: I will not make a statement, but I will say that there has been no freeze on stakes and prizes—on the contrary, we propose that the stake on amusements with prizes machines be increased from 30p to 50p. We made it very clear—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, because he served on the Gambling Bill Committee, as did other Members in the House today—that we would continue with any liberalisation only as long as all the conditions were met, including protecting the vulnerable and children, and ensuring that activities are crime-free. Discussions with the industry on stakes and prizes for AWPs will continue. If those can be satisfactorily concluded, I have no doubt that we can move forward.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will know of my concern about the impact of increased gambling on gambling addiction. Will he undertake to monitor levels of gambling addiction? If the more liberal regime leads to more gambling addiction, will he consider restraining and restricting casinos in future?

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes. There has been a prevalence study. The difficulty with gambling is not with casinos or betting shops but with online gambling. That is why we introduced the Gambling Act 2005. Remote gambling and internet gambling are the major growth areas, but we cannot control them until the Act is fully operational.
	I would go further and say that this cannot be addressed by just one member state. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will this year convene a meeting with a number of Ministers with responsibility for gambling around the world to consider introducing international legislation whereby we can deal with problem gambling on the internet. There is a major issue with the credit card companies as well, and we will be engaging them in discussion. We are looking at the whole question of the new, modern gambling. Remote and internet gambling is a major issue facing this country and many others.

Malcolm Moss: Why has it been possible under the Gaming Act 1968 to apply for a new casino licence up until April this year, whereas if an existing casino has to cease operation for any reason, such as a fire, it cannot rebuild or reinstate its licence until well into 2007? What other business has to live with that level of uncertainty?

Richard Caborn: Absolutely none. I admit that that is one of the problems with the legislation. We will address it with the industry, and if we can find a solution—[Hon. Members: "You are in government."] Yes, I understand that. We have been in government for the past eight years, and we will continue to be so. We are rather enjoying it.
	We will resolve this issue with the industry by applying the same common sense that we have applied to many other issues. As I said, it is nice to see in the Financial Times that sanity is prevailing among the Opposition, who played politics on regional casinos before the last election. We welcome them on board.

Elite Athletes (Funding)

Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on funding for elite athletes.

Mark Lancaster: If she will make a statement on funding for elite athletes.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that the whole House will want to send good wishes and good luck to the 40 athletes who will shortly set off for the winter Olympics in Turin, representing the GB team.
	We have allocated £98 million to support our world-class athletes for the Beijing Olympic and Paralympic cycle. We are also supporting the development of new, young talent and the so-called performance pathway in non-Olympic sports such as rugby and cricket. For example, we are investing £17 million over four years in our most talented youngsters through the talented athlete scholarship scheme, which covers 46 able-bodied and disability sports. To date, 1,000 young people have participated in that programme, and among them will be the Olympic stars of the future.

Richard Ottaway: I am not sure that that answers the question. The Secretary of State is circumventing the whole issue. Can she get a grip on this? Having trailed the whole issue for several months now, is not she embarrassed that the British Olympic Association has had to open an overdraft facility to fund elite athletes? Can she explain the real reason for the delay in the announcement, not the one that she has just given us? Has she forgotten, has the Treasury changed its mind, or is there a spat between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor?

Tessa Jowell: I regard that as simply a bit of bluster. UK Sport funds elite athletes. Since 1997 and since Sydney, the rate at which our elite athletes are funded has increased by more than 33 per cent.
	Let me deal with the question behind the hon. Gentleman's bluster. I suspect that he was groping towards asking what we intend to do about further funding for athletes up to 2012. We are negotiating with the Treasury about the proper and appropriate amount of funding but we are determined to invest for the long-term future performance of athletes—in 2008, 2012 and 2016. We shall not return to the Tory boom and bust—a bit of money now and none in the long term.

Mark Lancaster: Elite sport is already established in Milton Keynes. The city is home to the national hockey stadium and the national badminton centre. Is the Secretary of State aware of the good work of SportsAid, an organisation that raises money from the private sector to help fund our athletes? What action is she taking to help promote such organisations, the work of which so closely complements the role that the Government should play?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I welcome the opportunity to congratulate SportsAid on its excellent work and the young athletes who benefit. We wish to pursue precisely that sort of model, which looks to private sponsorship and other sources of funding beyond Government to ensure that we continue the investment in our elite and our up-and-coming young athletes so that they have the best chance of success for themselves and their country.

Derek Wyatt: It is stunning that there has been a 33 per cent. increase in elite athlete funding since 1997 and I commend the Department for that.
	Before the Berlin wall fell, East Germany and Russia had by far the most successful Olympic athletes. One reason for that was that they tested their young children at school at the ages of seven and 11. Through the Department of Health's initiative, we have the opportunity to test our children at the age of 11 in the near future. Would it be possible to add a heart test for athletics—in the broadest sense—and a hand-eye co-ordination test at 11 so that we could begin to ascertain how many children could make the grade later?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Work in schools, and the £1.5 billion that is invested in creating sporting opportunities and competitive sport for every child in school, allows precisely such talent identification and thus potential nurturing of children who show exceptional talent. My hon. Friend is right that one has to have the capacity to spot talent early and subsequently provide the resources and facilities that young people need to reach their potential. Our record since 1997 shows that we are doing that.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend has already mentioned future talented athletes. What specific message can I take back to the likes of Brad Garside in my constituency, a very talented under-16-year-old, with a potentially great future ahead of him, to show that we are genuinely on the side of talented young athletes for the future?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, who should point to the success of the talented athletes programme, under which young athletes are already beginning to win medals and perform showing enormous evidence of potential and talent in competitions in a wide range of sports. When I last examined the figures, some 46 sports were represented in the programme. That sends a clear signal to talented athletes throughout the country that we shall invest in them and remove obstacles, especially to families who cannot afford to fund their children's talent. We want to ensure that no talent is wasted. That will benefit the country and our prospects for 2012.

Hugh Robertson: May I associate my party with the Secretary of State's good wishes to the GB winter Olympic and Paralympic teams? The London 2012 bid was won by a commitment to enable young people through sport, and if that commitment is to become a reality, two things need to happen. We need to put more athletes on the rostrum to act as role models, and we need to ensure that more young people are able to play sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has touched on the first issue, but why is the Physical Education Association today complaining that the number of PE teachers is to be cut by one fifth by 2007?

Tessa Jowell: I was right with the hon. Gentleman for the first 30 seconds of his question; we share that analysis. However, I find his figures on PE teachers hard to sustain against the evidence that we now have 400 school sport partnerships right across the country, with PE teachers who have been properly trained in the art of teaching physical education, rather than teachers who double up with their other subjects—as has happened in the past—and who see PE as a kind of voluntary extra to which they contribute their time. I would be very happy to meet representatives of the Physical Education Association to discuss their concerns, but this does not for a moment detract from the fact that we have school sport for two hours a week in 64 per cent. of our schools. That is a record to be proud of and on which we intend to build.

Sadiq Khan: Funding for elite athletes is one criterion for measuring how supportive the Department is being, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 33 per cent. increase to which she referred. Does she agree, however, that the funding of facilities is equally important? Will she tell the House what help the Department is giving to facilities around the country?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence shows that, as we try to get more young people taking part in sport, good quality facilities are an absolute prerequisite to their willingness to do so, and to sustain the habit of participating in whatever sport they have taken up. We will have spent £1 billion of lottery and Exchequer money over the past three years. New sports halls and school facilities are being built across the country, and old swimming pools are being replaced by new ones. Facilities play a critical part in the Government's drive to get more young people taking part and excelling in sport.

Lottery Funds

David Amess: What steps she will take to ensure that lottery funds are distributed to the four original good causes.

Richard Caborn: The share of national lottery funding for all four good causes is guaranteed until 2009, and each cause will continue after 2009. But the public also want community learning and health projects, and we will not let them down by going back to the 1993 priorities.

David Amess: That is splendid news. In the light of the Minister's answer, will he confirm that the National Lottery Bill will not erode the traditional independence of the way in which the lottery spends its money, that there will be no political interference, and that the Big Lottery Fund represents additional funding entirely based on the core principles on which the lottery was founded?

Richard Caborn: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman's first question was about independence. At the time of the Report stage and Third Reading of the National Lottery Bill, which is now in another place, we spoke to all the lottery distributors. They have agreed to show in their annual reports how they have delivered additionality. That information will be made available in both Houses of Parliament—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to commit the Opposition's time to a debate on that additionality, we should be more than pleased to respond to it. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the lottery was set up under the previous Conservative Government led by John Major, and it is a first-class institution. However, it needs to be refreshed from time to time, and we have conducted a wide consultation on the issues. The MORI poll of 2000, and a subsequent YouGov poll, have shown that health, education and the environment were the areas that the general public wanted to see their lottery money spent on in future. So that is what we are doing in the new Bill; those three themes will be the main recipients of the money from the Big Lottery Fund.

Rosie Cooper: In my constituency of West Lancashire, the national lottery has supported 266 wide-ranging projects, from the Dark Horse Venture educational programme to the renovation of play areas and, very importantly, brighter future workshops in which disabled young people refurbish mobility equipment. That is all very welcome, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to make it easier for constituents such as mine to access lottery funds and to ensure that they get their fair share? Will the guidance provided by the proposed lottery funding website play a part in spreading the benefits of the lottery right round the country, and especially to places such as West Lancashire?

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes, and my hon. Friend makes a valid point. As good as the lottery was in 1993, one of the big problems was the fact that it was very much capital driven and driven by the big schemes. Systematically, we have been bringing the lottery fund distributors more in tune with what people want and making things easier. The Big Lottery Fund will be, as it were, a one-stop shop. I hope that the information on the website will enable people and organisations to apply for lottery funding. Whatever the answer is to an application, it will be found by going through that one-stop shop, which is what the Big Lottery Fund will be. I hope that the new forms that are being designed will give assistance too. Even the smallest organisation should be able to apply with some ease to access lottery funding in future.

Mark Field: In the week when the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), has argued that our public libraries should not be allowed to close, why is the Minister not insisting on lottery funds being used for the arts and heritage? The Government have promised us many times that we are engaging in a big conversation, so will he explain why he has ignored voices not only from Parliament, but from communities across the country, which want the Big Lottery Fund to target expenditure on the four original good causes?

Richard Caborn: That is interesting, because on the one hand the Conservatives say that there has to be independence, but on the other the hon. Gentleman says that the Government should instruct. However, let us park that one and I will answer the question. I should inform him that we have been out on the widest consultation and that what he has said is just not true. About 69 per cent. of those in the MORI poll said that they wanted spending on health and 55 per cent. said they wanted spending on education. The YouGov poll also involved the question of the environment. These are the concerns of the British people; that has been tested by MORI, YouGov and, indeed, a very wide consultation.
	The hon. Gentleman has been listening too much to the Centre for Policy Studies and his colleague, Ruth Lea, who got it totally wrong. Mind you, that is not new conservatism, is it? He is fundamentally wrong.

Madeleine Moon: People in my constituency are concerned about the sustainability of good-quality projects that have been funded through the national lottery. In a recent national poll, Kenfig Pyle Community Youth was acknowledged as the most inspirational project involving working with young people, but it will close later this year unless new funding can be found. Can we look at opening up those unclaimed prizes and making that money available to help projects such as KPCY, which has been critical to cutting crime in my community?

Richard Caborn: On the specific issue, with which I am not au fait, if my hon. Friend wants to come to the Department for discussions I am more than willing to meet her. Prize money is recycled back into the good causes, as is the interest accrued on the underspends in the distributors' bank balances. On both counts, we are ensuring that the money goes to good causes.

Public Swimming Pools

Robert Wilson: If she will make a statement on provision of public swimming pools.

Tessa Jowell: There are more than 4,400 swimming facilities of variable quality across England that are open to the public: 72 per cent. are owned by the local authority or education sectors, and more than half are pay-and-play facilities. Since 2004, 131 pools have opened across the country. More local authority pools have opened than have closed. Since 1997, the Government and lottery distributing bodies between them have invested more than £3 billion in physical activity and sport, and in that time £249 million of lottery investment has gone to swimming, which is the largest amount that has gone to any single sport.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Is she aware, however, that two swimming pools in my constituency are due to be closed with no certainty of like-for-like replacement? In addition, recent reports in the press indicate that 10 per cent. of swimming pools in schools have already closed. Given the proximity of the 2012 Olympics and the importance of swimming as a life skill, what steps are the Government taking to prevent further pool closures?

Tessa Jowell: On the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I understand that the Arthur Hill pool is scheduled for closure, but the local authority has given a clear commitment that a new facility will be built with the capital receipt, and that the Arthur Hill pool will remain open until the new facility is ready. If that is not the case, I am happy to pursue the matter with the hon. Gentleman. More generally, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) raised in an earlier question, we need more modern facilities. The average age of swimming pools is about 25 years, and many are simply not of the standard that people are prepared to use regularly. That is why we are asking local authorities to review their stock and make decisions where appropriate about how they might reinvest in modern, new facilities, with coaches. Such opportunities, and the right-to-swim programme, are ways of increasing participation in swimming.

Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State comment on the position in London, where a number of boroughs are either in the process of closing swimming pools or talking about closing them, and many are not replacing them? Does she accept that we will increasingly face that problem as swimming pools get older, and that perhaps local authorities should take an all-party approach to the issue? All local authorities, whatever their politics, are having to close swimming pools, and they should not have to do so, given that we will host the Olympic games in 2012.

Tessa Jowell: On balance, more pools have opened than closed, but I take my hon. Friend's point about the poor quality of many local authority facilities, which are old and for which we estimate the national maintenance backlog as something like £500 million. We therefore need to take steps. We have commissioned the Audit Commission to provide us with an assessment of the state of local authority facilities. However, we must also work with local authorities. The performance assessment will provide leverage to hold them to account in relation to leisure and sporting facilities, and to make the case for planning for the long term, divesting, selling off or pulling down those facilities that are too old to be serviceable again and, critically, reinvesting the money in the kind of modern facilities that people will want to use.

Vincent Cable: What progress have the Government made in removing the long-standing discrimination operated by official funding bodies such as Sport England against open-air pools, including those that are heated and operate all the year round, such as the extremely popular Hampton pool in my constituency?

Tessa Jowell: That is a very good question. As someone who swims periodically in the open-air Hampstead ponds, I am happy to take up that important matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Neil Turner: Wigan council recently agreed to fund free access to all its pools for those under 16. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an extremely exciting and bold initiative, which will encourage young people to join swimming clubs for health, safety and athletics purposes? Will she join me in congratulating the Labour-led council on that bold initiative?

Tessa Jowell: I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend and his local authority. I hope that others will follow the excellent example that he and his Labour colleagues have set. Right-to-swim schemes are beginning to develop around the country: there is at least one in every region, and wherever they operate they are very successful in encouraging more young people to take up swimming regularly.

Angela Watkinson: My constituency does have a new swimming pool, but—and it is a very big but—a great opportunity was missed. Although the total sum available was enough to fund the building of an eight-lane, competition-size pool, there were so many strings attached to the lottery funding element, involving the provision of additional community facilities, that the result was only a six-lane, 25 m pool with less water space than the old pool which it replaced.
	We could have had the only Olympic-size swimming pool in Greater London. Will the Minister think carefully about the strings attached to lottery funding? There are occasions on which local decisions are best. Had all the money been devoted to that pool, we could have had an Olympic-size pool in Harold Hill in Upminster.

Tessa Jowell: Obviously the hon. Lady is right. It is important constantly to ensure that application to the lottery fund is as simple and straightforward as possible. As for her point about the size of the pool, we will shortly have 19 50 m swimming pools, at least one in every region. Consultation with the Amateur Swimming Association, the governing body, and Sport England leads to a decision on whether a 50 m, a 30 m or a 25 m pool should be built. I think that their judgment is much better than mine in this instance.

Alison Seabeck: We are losing a swimming pool in Plymouth because the landowner wants to redevelop the site. Almost in parallel, the city council is trying to establish a life centre which would meet the Government's emphasis on the health aims of sport and leisure, and which would include a swimming pool. As a former swimming coach and lifeguard, I well understand the value of swimming pools for health and leisure purposes, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is offering design advice to local authorities to ensure that pools meet not just leisure standards but competitive standards? I agree with the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that there ought to be an eight-lane pool.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State will be able to answer.

Tessa Jowell: She will do her best, Mr. Speaker.
	I take my hon. Friend's point. Advice of that kind is available through Sport England.

Natascha Engel: How will the Secretary of State ensure that the Olympics and Paralympics legacy is spread a little more widely, and not confined to the south of England and big cities? May I suggest that a good start would be the building of an Olympic-size swimming pool in one of the coalfield areas, in North-East Derbyshire or perhaps in Bolsover?

Richard Caborn: There is one in Sheffield.

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend points out that there is one in Sheffield, which may not be surprising.
	My hon. Friend has made an important point. We want the benefits of the 2012 Olympics in London to be felt across the country, which is why we held the first Olympics business summit last week. It was attended by 250 businesses from all over the United Kingdom. The sporting legacy must also be shared, however, through the development of preparation camps and of facilities funded by Sport England and the lottery. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be an excellent advocate of that cause on behalf of her constituents.

Sport and Leisure Facilities

Laura Moffatt: What assessment she has made of the contribution of high-quality sport and leisure facilities to improving the health and well-being of the populations they serve.

David Lammy: Research has demonstrated the positive impact that sport has on the health of individuals and communities. That is why we have a public service agreement target to increase the number of people who participate in active sport by 3 per cent. in the period to 2008.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he congratulate Labour-run Crawley borough council, which last week opened second-to-none leisure and sports facilities, including a 50 m pool, which has been sited in the area of the town that most needs help and support in making sure that people are active? Not only will we be able, we hope, to play our part in the Olympics, but we have facilities second to none for our community. Will my hon. Friend also come and have a swim in our lovely new pool?

David Lammy: I definitely congratulate Labour-run Crawley council and the constituency's hard-working Labour MP who has fought hard to ensure that the best sports facilities are there for her constituents. I am not a great swimmer, but I will endeavour to get to Crawley to make an attempt.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know that Chasetown football club recently did very well in the FA cup round. [hon. Mems: "Which round?"] Well, you know, that's a detail.
	Does the Minister agree that the money can be used to help promote sport in the club's area. Will he join me and the club in supporting its lottery bid to try to get a training area for the team and for the people of Chasetown?

David Lammy: We cannot interfere with individual lottery decisions, but I congratulate all the small clubs who have made it through FA cup rounds, particularly Leicester, who beat Spurs.

Christine Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only sports facilities but public libraries can make a significant contribution to the well-being of local communities? Will he join me in urging the Conservative-controlled Cheshire county council to have a rethink on its proposal to close three branch libraries, all well used by all age groups, in my constituency?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Libraries play a very important role in the well-being of communities up and down the country. Reading is a key part of our communities' arts and cultural heritage. That is why I have written to every local authority, including Cheshire, to remind them of their obligation, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to provide a comprehensive and efficient library system.

Hugo Swire: As a recent survivor of the 50th Anglo-Swiss parliamentary ski race, in which Members from both sides of the House took part—some were injured, but perhaps we shall come to that later—may I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks as our team speeds towards Turin for what I am sure will be victory after victory?
	We can all agree on the importance of sport and leisure facilities in improving the health of the nation. That means, however, that facilities themselves need to be financially healthy. Given the importance of amateur sports clubs in improving the health of the nation, why do 56 per cent. of clubs fall within the highest three bands—C, D and E—for club licensing fees, and what possible incentive is there for any club to improve its facilities if it will then be assessed at an even higher rate?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is mandatory rate relief for those uplifts. I shall be happy to write to him with more detail if he has not considered the matter carefully.

Brian Jenkins: I am not particularly interested in or worried about people who use high-quality sport and leisure facilities. What concerns me is the people who go nowhere near leisure or sports facilities, particularly youngsters who walk the streets. What plans has the Minister to engage those young people in organised sporting activities, or in any organised activity whatsoever, in order to look after their well-being?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a central point. First, our target is that, by 2008, most people will live within 20 minutes of a good multi-sports facility. Secondly, we need to ensure, again by means of our target, that we are dealing with obesity, including ensuring that there is no increase in obesity in children under 11. Thirdly, Sport England must be restructured to ensure that all its staff are dedicated to increasing participation across all our communities, which must be key, especially for our young people.

Stanbrook Abbey

Michael Spicer: If she will make a statement on the future of Stanbrook Abbey in Callow End.

David Lammy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received an application to upgrade the church from its grade II listing and to list the remaining buildings on the site. She is seeking advice on that from English Heritage and will decide once that advice is received.

Michael Spicer: It has already taken 14 months to make the decision. When will the Secretary of State make the decision about upgrading this very important Pugin building?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that it was necessary to ask for further information. That information was received and it is right and proper that English Heritage undertakes appropriate site visits so that it can make correct recommendations to the Secretary of State. On receipt of that, my right hon. Friend will be able to come to a view about the listing arrangements.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Churches and Cathedrals (Charging)

Michael Fabricant: What the Commissioners' policy is on charging admission to churches and cathedrals; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: For the most part, access to church buildings is free. In relation to cathedrals and a statement, the General Synod passed a motion urging the Church to continue to exercise sensitivity in raising money, but ultimately the decision to charge rests with individual cathedrals.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that Westminster cathedral has a mandatory charge for people wishing to go in and look round. At Lichfield cathedral, the charge is voluntary, although the majority of visitors pay the recommended amount. Does he agree that a voluntary payment is always preferable to a mandatory payment when visiting a cathedral?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman knows that three of our major church buildings are the focus of world heritage sites: Durham cathedral, Canterbury cathedral and Westminster abbey. It is a privilege for the Church to take responsibility for their upkeep and one that the whole nation should share. On whether charges should be voluntary or mandatory, I have seen the queues outside Westminster abbey, but I have also visited Lichfield cathedral. They are both splendid buildings and a great joy to the Church.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have great sympathy for cathedrals and the need to maintain ancient buildings, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly tacky to be unable to enter a cathedral, such as York, without having to pay? That creates a bad impression in people's minds. In comparison, Chester cathedral has a quiet dignity. I hope that he will be able to persuade the cathedrals to think again.

Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend knows, English Heritage announced last week £1 million in grants for 2006 for 25 cathedrals. She refers to a profound dilemma for Church and state. The state should contribute more to our cathedrals, because they are part of our national heritage. It is a debate that we are having with the state.

Philip Hollobone: Do the Church Commissioners notice any difference in attendance numbers between cathedrals that have a compulsory charge and those that have only a voluntary levy?

Stuart Bell: We have not made a study of that, but there are queues a mile long outside Westminster abbey every day and my visits to Lichfield show the same thing. The Church's dilemma in keeping up its buildings is profound: £900 million a year is spent on keeping up churches, which is an enormous amount. How the Church deals with that in relation to the state is a matter that I shall take up shortly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Hugh Bayley: The 600-year-old great east window of York minster is the biggest and greatest expanse of medieval stained glass anywhere in the world. Its restoration has just begun and will cost about £23 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that the charges that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) criticised would be lower, or not made at all, if the Government provided more support for our great national heritage in our cathedrals?

Stuart Bell: I return to my original point. How to handle the charges is a matter for each cathedral, but York minster shows just how much work cathedrals will continue to need to keep their fabric in good repair. The major project on the east front will take time, effort and money.

Ecclesiastical Committee

Robert Key: What proposed measures from the General Synod of the Church of England have been rejected by the Ecclesiastical Committee as not expedient since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: Since the Synodical Government Measure 1969, the Ecclesiastical Committee has not expressed the view to Synod that a Measure was inexpedient. In relation to a statement, there have been a number of occasions when the Committee has objected to aspects of a Measure, leading to the withdrawal and subsequent resubmission in a different form of the Measure in question.

Robert Key: Does not that suggest that, when a two-thirds majority in the Synod produces a request for legislation, the Ecclesiastical Committee's record is to take it with a light touch and to respect the will of the majority in the Synod, as might happen, for example, with the coming Measures on women bishops?

Stuart Bell: As a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are a long way from women bishops. Although it is true that we have not declared any Measure inexpedient, two Measures—the Churchwardens Measure 2001 and the Church of England (Pensions) Measure 2003—were sent back from the Committee and returned in amended form. In 1984, the Appointment of Bishops Measure was actually turned down by the House after the Committee deemed it expedient.

Octavia Hill Estates

David Taylor: What representations the Church Commissioners have received in relation to their planned disposal of the Octavia Hill estates in south London.

Stuart Bell: We have received representations from individual tenants and their associations, local clergy and elected representatives, as well as from other parties with an interest in the housing sector.

David Taylor: Some of my fellow Waterloo residents are concerned that the estates will be sold off to the highest bidder, even if the new owner had policies that were diametrically opposed to the purposes for which the charity was created. What type of restrictive covenant is being considered to ensure that the properties will continue to form a key part of London's much needed social housing stock, especially south of the river?

Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend is aware, the decision to sell the estates has been taken and a final decision will be made shortly. The Church has an obligation under responsibilities conferred by the House to act in accordance with the law when selling off its estates. All aspects of the law will be fully considered in the sale. The restrictive covenant to which my hon. Friend referred is a legal matter and I shall write to him about it.

Simon Hughes: What help will the hon. Gentleman give me and my neighbours, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and our constituents in respect of the letter we sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury making it clear that selling into the private market, and not keeping estates as social housing, will be entirely unacceptable? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous disposal retained some lower cost housing, but that that has already been lost, so the likely outcome of anything that does not guarantee social housing is that there will be market rents and ordinary south Londoners will have no chance to live in those houses?

Stuart Bell: I welcome to our Question Time my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who, with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), has a strong interest in this issue. I congratulate all three of them on participating in the consultation.
	The Church has an obligation to its wider community. We contribute 18 per cent. to the Church's running during the year, and it has a statutory obligation to the House to make the best possible arrangements in relation to the sale of the Octavia Hill estates. Clearly, those arrangements involve consultation and we are aware of the concerns of the people there, but the decision is one for the Church. I read with interest the letter that the hon. Gentleman and his parliamentary colleagues wrote to the archbishop. We welcome that letter and we will listen with great interest to what the archbishop says, but the legal duty rests with the commissioners.

Housing (Selling Policy)

Kate Hoey: When the Church Commissioners will make a decision on to whom to sell its housing in Walworth, Waterloo and Vauxhall.

Stuart Bell: During the first half of this year.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend must realise just how much anger there is in the communities represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and myself. This is a shocking state of affairs and it has gone on for far too long. Does he realise that this is doing the Church no good whatsoever; that, legally, it could sell to a social landlord tomorrow if it wished; and that it seems to all of us who represent those very strong communities in inner-city London that the Church is only interested in profit?

Stuart Bell: On the latter point, the Church, of course, has an obligation to the wider Church, as well as to the people of the Octavia Hill estates, and it recognises that responsibility. The commissioners, however, are unwilling to ignore the statutory duties conferred on them by Parliament to manage their investments in such a way that they provide the maximum sustainable support to the wider Church.

Chris Bryant: Does my hon. Friend understand that many hon. Members and many of the wider public find this policy extremely odd, especially when the Church Commissioners are planning to buy a new palace for the Bishop of Oxford for £2.4 million? I mean no disrespect to the Bishop of Oxford—indeed, he is a very fine man, who will retire soon—but do bishops really need so many bedrooms in their palaces?

Stuart Bell: I had anticipated that the question of princes' palaces would arise, but I would not wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker, thus spoiling your sunny disposition, by widening the question from the Octavia Hill estates to the Bishop of Oxford. Let me simply say that we are talking about the sale of the freeholds only of the Octavia Hill estates. Existing tenancy agreements will remain in place after the freeholds are sold.

Inspired Campaign

Ben Chapman: What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with English Heritage on its Inspired campaign.

Stuart Bell: The Inspired campaign is convergent with the Church of England's own work to demonstrate the potential of church buildings and the pressures upon them. The Church Heritage Forum is in regular contact with English Heritage.

Ben Chapman: Given the importance of places of worship in general, and cathedrals and parish churches in particular, at the heart of the community for centuries, will my hon. Friend ensure that English Heritage is given every possible support in its campaign to ensure that action is taken to keep those facilities not just in good order, but alive and thriving?

Stuart Bell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing interest in this subject. In my forthcoming letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can draw on his support and that of other right hon. and hon. Members to indicate the need for better state funding arrangements for Churches of different faiths and denominations, and the point that he makes will be taken to the Chancellor in the Treasury.

Church Repairs

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations the Commissioners have received on the level of grants for church repairs from English Heritage.

Stuart Bell: The Church Heritage Forum, of which the Church Commissioners are a member, is aware of concerns from many quarters on the constraints on the funding received by English Heritage.

Anne McIntosh: It seems unfortunate that not only did the Chancellor not negotiate a reduced rate of VAT on church repairs, but that less money is going from the lottery into English Heritage and less money is going from it into church repairs. What representations is the hon. Gentleman making in that regard?

Stuart Bell: We are aware of the imbalance between the funding of the Church from English Heritage and through the moneys from the lottery. On the back of questions such as those from the hon. Lady and my hon. Friends, we are seeking a fresh partnership that we can enter into with the Government that ensures greater funding in the interests of the Church and of our heritage. According to the latest opinion poll, 86 per cent. of our population actually visit a church each year.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Commission (Costs)

John Spellar: What was the cost of the Electoral Commission for the last year for which figures are available.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission's accounts for 2004–005, which were laid before the House on 27 October 2005, show that its expenditure in that year in resource terms was £28,824,000.

John Spellar: Is that not a considerable sum of money and probably more than it costs to run the central headquarters of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties combined? Does the Electoral Commission not seem to be straying into all sorts of areas way beyond its original remit, and is it not time that we started to look at whether it represents proper value for money?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission undertakes duties that have been laid upon it by Parliament. Before each financial year, the commission submits to the Speaker's Committee an estimate of the commission's income and expenditure for that year and the Speaker's Committee takes account of the latest report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the commission and it also consults the Treasury and considers any advice that the Treasury may give before the Speaker's Committee lays the Electoral Commission's estimates before the House.

Health and Social Care Services

Patricia Hewitt: Today, we publish a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for further improvements to health and social care services in the community. We are nearly six years through a 10-year programme of NHS improvement that has seen waiting lists dramatically reduced and more people treated faster and better than ever before. At the same time, social care services have been supporting more elderly people than ever before to live at home and maintain their independence.
	Our unprecedented investment in the NHS—made possible by strong economic management and our decision to ask people to pay increased national insurance contributions—means that, by 2008, we will have caught up with the historic underfunding of the NHS and caught up with the health care funding of other European countries. What matters is not simply how much we spend, but where we spend it. As a nation, we invest less than comparable countries on preventing people from becoming ill and less on services in the community. For instance, just 2 per cent. of our health care budget is devoted to prevention, half the level in Germany.
	I think that all of us know that our health and well-being depend at least as much on what we do ourselves as on what the NHS and social care services do for us. As Sir Derek Wanless said in his landmark report on the future of the NHS, people need to be "fully engaged" in their own health if we are to offset the challenges posed by an ageing population and ensure the sustainability of the NHS and social care, so the views of the public themselves were the starting point for this White Paper.
	More than 100,000 people responded to the consultation on last year's Green Paper on adult social care, "Independence, Well-being and Choice". Then we embarked on the innovative, "Your health, your care, your say" public engagement programme, which culminated in a 1,000-strong citizens' summit in Birmingham. I am grateful to everyone who was involved in that, particularly the 10 members of the citizens' panel who worked with us throughout the development of the White Paper.
	Four themes emerged clearly from our public consultation: we need more emphasis on prevention, with earlier intervention; we need to give people more choice and more say in the services they receive; we need to provide more support for those who need it most, particularly people with long-term needs; and we need to do much more to tackle inequalities and provide more services conveniently within local communities.
	The White Paper makes clear our desire to focus on prevention. It outlines the work that is now being done in the partnerships for older people pilots to help older people to remain independent in their own homes. It sets out our commitment to large-scale pilots covering at least 1 million people in which health and care services will work closely together, with the intensive use of new technologies—including, for instance, the telecare assessment of people's conditions in their own homes that is being trialled in some parts of the country—to improve people's well-being and dramatically reduce emergency hospital admissions. The pilots will provide further evidence of the benefits of new approaches and help the NHS and local councils to spread best practice much faster.
	Of all the proposals that came to us from the public themselves, the most popular was the idea of a health MOT. We have responded to that by setting out in the White Paper our proposal for an NHS life check at key points in people's lives. The NHS life check will ask people about their lifestyle and family history, with a follow-up from a health trainer and, if necessary, a nurse or GP, for people in high-risk categories. We will pilot the new health check, starting with parents of very young children and people in their early 50s, and introduce it initially in the areas with the worst health inequalities where we can make the biggest difference. I know that the proposal will be warmly welcomed by the public and by hon. Members, at least on this side of the House.
	People also said that they wanted more emphasis on mental well-being. The White Paper sets out how we will improve people's mental well-being through greater use of psychological therapies and a focus on mental well-being in preventive work with older people and by giving people more information and support on how to stay mentally and emotionally well.
	By giving people more choice and more say in the services that they use, we will ensure that people themselves become the main drivers of service improvement and that services become increasingly personal and built around the different needs of different individuals and their communities. In theory, people have always been able to choose their GP. We will make that choice a reality for far more people by simplifying the registration system and giving people an entitlement to far more information about the services available in their area. Starting from April this year, the GP contract will link an element of GPs' pay to patients' satisfaction with the practice, including the appointments system, thus providing a real incentive for more convenient opening times.
	In social care, we will increase the take-up of direct payments by introducing legislation to extend their availability at the earliest opportunity. We will pilot the introduction of individual budgets and bring together several different income streams from social care, community equipment, independent living funds and other programmes so that individuals can get the services that they need in the way in which they want them.
	Those who make the most use of our health and social care services are those with long-term needs: frail elderly people, those with serious disabilities and people with conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Many of those people need the support of several organisations, but are frustrated that, too often, those different agencies seem to work in isolation. We know that it makes sense for everybody if the local NHS and the local authority work more closely together. For instance, if elderly people's homes are adapted to reduce the risk of a fall, they are less likely to end up in hospital, which is far better for them and better, too, for the NHS. If proper rehabilitation occurs after an operation, a patient is less likely to need social care.
	By giving local authorities and the NHS stronger incentives to work together, we have already reduced the number of patients who stay in hospital with delayed discharges because no arrangements are in place to support them in the community. Now we will strengthen that joint working by introducing a single assessment of health and care needs and a joint care plan for people with the most complex needs. By 2008, we will expect primary care trusts and local authorities to establish joint health and social care teams. A common budgetary and planning system will support more of those organisations in jointly commissioning services.
	Six million people care for relatives or friends with long-term needs. Many of those carers, who are doing a wonderful job in our communities, have to reduce or give up their own work to do so and, often, their own health suffers as a result of the responsibility that they take for others. In future we will ensure that short-term home-based respite support is established for carers, to deal with emergencies. In response to what carers themselves have told us, we will establish an expert carers programme, similar to the enormously popular expert patients programme, to support carers with the skills that they need to look after their own health and that of the people whom they care for.
	Despite the fact that we have 4,300 more GPs than we had in 1997, there are still fewest in the poorest areas that need them most. The White Paper will ensure that care is more closely matched to need. We will tackle that inequality in two ways. First, over the next two years, as NHS funding continues to increase by unprecedented amounts, we will ensure that, as every area gets more, those who need most will get the most. Moving traditionally underfunded areas rapidly towards target means that, by 2008, when average NHS funding will be nearly £1,400 per head, primary care trusts in the worst-off areas will receive on average £1,552 per person: fairer funding across the NHS.
	Secondly, we will ensure that, where people are dissatisfied with the care that they receive and cannot get a better choice of services, primary care trusts will bring in additional services. Already, in six areas that are short of doctors, including inner-city communities in Barking and Bradford, we are supporting the local NHS to bring in new providers that will offer extended opening hours and a full range of services. Whether services are organised by traditional GPs, by nurse practitioners, by private firms or by social enterprises and the not-for-profit sector, the test will be simple: to get the best services for patients with the best value for money, all free at the point of need in accordance with the founding principles of the NHS.
	Modern medical technology is making it possible to deliver in people's homes or neighbourhoods health care that in the past was available only in hospitals. A kidney patient can now receive dialysis in a local health centre, or even in their own home. Minor surgery can be done in a well-equipped GP practice or a modern community hospital. Yet in contrast to what happens in Germany, where most out-patient appointments take place in local health polyclinics, we continue to expect most out-patients to travel to an acute hospital.
	As part of our strategy to provide care more conveniently, closer to the patient and with better value for money, we will work with the royal colleges to demonstrate how far more out-patient care and day-case procedures in medical specialties such as ear, nose and throat, and dermatology, can be carried out in the community, while high clinical standards are maintained.
	We have already opened or are building 79 new acute hospitals, with more to come. Now we will also develop a new generation of community hospitals—modern facilities, with the latest diagnostic technology, able to provide a full range of out-patient and day-case treatment, and in many cases with intermediate beds as well.
	Some primary care trusts are planning to close local cottage hospitals. Where these closures are due to facilities that are clinically not viable, or which local people do not want to use, local reorganisation is right. But community facilities that are needed for the long term must not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures. So we will expect primary care trusts to reconsider such proposals against the principles of the White Paper.
	This White Paper marks a strategic shift in how we provide care, moving services out of acute hospitals into community settings, with more investment in prevention and far better management of long-term conditions. People have talked for decades of a primary care-led NHS.   We will now deliver it. Because of our reforms, withstronger primary care trusts, practice-based commissioning, more freedom for GPs and payment by results, more work than ever before will be done locally. As NHS budgets continue to increase, more of that growth money will go into local community services.
	The White Paper sets out a vision for health and social care that will give people more choice and more control over their health and well-being and the local services that support them. It is the next stage in creating an NHS that is truly patient led—fair to all, but increasingly personal to each. I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me two-hour advance notice of the statement and a copy of the White Paper. I will not be so churlish as to say that it was more useful to read three days of briefing in the newspapers beforehand.
	It is clear what Members on both sides of the House want to achieve: more accessible, high-quality health care available to all on the basis of need, not ability to pay and NHS staff and professionals who are increasingly enabled to deliver the care that they want to deliver in response to patient choice and patient voice. I welcome some of the Secretary of State's proposals in the White Paper. In 1996, before the 1997 election, the Conservative party was the first to legislate for direct payments. Today, under a Labour Government, only 2.25 per cent. of people eligible for direct payments have taken them up. The Secretary of State says that such payments should be more accessible and that she will legislate accordingly, which I welcome. She said that there should be more respite care. We all very much agree, but I hope she will be more specific about the entitlements to respite care that will be provided.
	In the election, we all promised and intended to deliver increased resources for palliative care. The White Paper makes it clear that that will be delivered through end-of-life care networks, but the Secretary of State has not made it clear how much additional money that palliative care support represents. In particular, she did not say how much of that will go to support children's hospices which, at the moment, must survive with just 5 per cent. of their resources derived from statutory or Government sources. East Anglian Children's Hospices in my own area has recently had to make 25 staff redundant, so it would be very interested to hear the Secretary of State's answer.
	I welcome the U-turn on community hospitals. On 15 November last year, my hon. Friends will recall an Opposition debate in which we pressed Ministers to review the closure of community hospitals. Indeed, our motion stated that we should not allow short-term measures to be taken for budgetary reasons, because that would prejudice the delivery of care in the community in the long term. The Secretary of State now says that she will do precisely what Government Members voted against on 15 November.
	The statement comes just five days after the Secretary of State sent financial hit squads into 18 NHS trusts. The NHS Confederation threatened "painful decisions" and a £1 billion deficit across the NHS. That is not what we hear from the Secretary of State. Instead, we hear about the sunlit uplands of future health care with happy patients, doctors waiting in supermarkets for patients to drop by and hospitals that are empty for lack of patients. It is rather like "Yes, Minister"—the NHS and hospitals would work perfectly if only patients did not keep turning up and wanting treatment. The Secretary of State must acknowledge reality before she embarks on a Patricia in Wonderland adventure.
	Does the Secretary of State understand that primary care trusts have cut the precise services on which her White Paper plans depend? How can palliative care be improved if Macmillan nurses have been transferred to other duties for budgetary reasons? How can consultants offer out-patient clinics in the community or minor operations locally if 90 community hospitals are being closed? How can young people using mental health services be supported as the White Paper promises if those services are being cut, as is the case in my constituency? How can she criticise GPs for lack of access to their surgeries when it is just under two years since the Government contract removed Saturday morning surgeries? It is Government targets that have turned the GP appointment system into chaos.
	The Secretary of State has not dared to tell the House what she is proposing to do to hospital services. Last Thursday, her Department published the document that I have in my hand. She did not tell us about it today and she did not make a statement last Thursday, but it makes it clear that, in 2006–07, NHS costs will rise by 6.5 per cent., but the tariff in hospitals will rise by 1.5 per cent. Labour Members should read that document before they read the White Paper. The squeeze on hospitals will continue next year—hospitals that have deficits this year will have larger deficits next year. The Secretary of State is planning a £4 billion shift from hospital care, but she has not told the House which wards and which hospitals will close, and perhaps she will address this point in her reply. NHS staff think it madness to engage with some of the additional proposals in the White Paper while the wards and hospitals that patients need are being closed.
	The Secretary of State is taking an immense gamble, because unless patients can be more effectively and comprehensively cared for in the community, the hospital sector will be under-resourced to handle rising demand, and it will be patients who suffer. At least she understands that she must adopt the previous Conservative Government's policies to make progress in community and primary care. Market mechanisms with increased private sector involvement, direct payments in social care and GP fundholding are essential if we are to have success after eight years of failure to reform the service.
	The White Paper fails to spell out how the reforms will work. Will the Government legislate to allow direct payments to extend across health and social care, so that patients with long-term conditions can control the management of their care? Will GPs in practice-based commissioning—new Labour-speak for GP fundholding—be given real budgets as Professor Julian Le Grand, the former health adviser at No. 10, has recommended? Will GP budget holders be able to use the savings that they generate to improve their patients' care or will such savings be siphoned off to meet PCT deficits? Will GPs be given the freedom to refer rather than being constrained by PCT decisions? Will the Government actually deliver real patient choice, given that their choose-and-book system is already 15 months late? Finally, will GPs be able to hold and negotiate contracts? If the answer to those questions is yes, then the Opposition will support the White Paper and the legislation to bring back fundholding.
	I hope that the Secretary of State makes it clear that no more community hospitals will be shut. If the PCTs must review community hospitals, will she ensure that those PCTs that have deficits and that have nowhere else to go are supported to keep community hospitals open until additional resources are provided? In particular, will she introduce a split tariff to allow patients who are treated in a community hospital as part of a spell of hospital care to obtain part of the tariff for that treatment?
	On health MOTs, more screening is, of course, required—for example, ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurisms and bowel cancer screening have not been implemented, although they have been recommended and are needed. We are also 20 per cent. below the target level on diabetic retinopathy.
	We need more opportunistic health screening. As the Secretary of State knows, the pharmacy contract permits pharmacies, which are visited by 90 per cent. of the public, to provide cholesterol tests, blood pressure tests, blood sugar level testing and body mass index assessments. Pharmacies can provide such services to GPs, who can follow up on people with certain risk factors. Where will the so-called life checks come from, and why should they take place at 11, 18 and 50? Why did the Secretary of State go down that route rather than the one being developed and piloted in the NHS today?
	If the Government are confident that Tesco, Boots, companies such as United Healthcare and social enterprises want to provide primary health care, especially in areas that lack GP services, then we will support them. However, the market must be genuinely competitive, and community health services should not be so concentrated in one provider's hands as to represent a monopoly. Of course, there is no reason why PCTs should not continue to provide services, as long as they, too, are subject to competition. However, if they are providers of services, that undermines the case for them to become more distant strategic bodies instead of local providers that are more locally accountable. As the Select Committee on Health made clear, the whole process of PCT reorganisation has been a shambles. Even now, we do not know the future structure of commissioning, and the Government say that it will not be published for some months, yet that is the basis on which reorganisation should proceed. We should know the function of PCTs and then determine what their structure should be, not the other way round.
	This White Paper should have been about commissioning. It should have set out how patients can have more choice, more control and a stronger voice. We have had the Government's sham consultations, and many of them, but where is the genuinely accountable patient and public involvement system for the NHS? That has not happened, and there are no proposals in the White Paper to do it. It should have explained how GPs can use real GP budgets to access the whole patient pathway; how we break down the barriers between health and social care, with individual budgets, including for those with long-term conditions; how we break down the barriers between primary care and hospitals instead of institutionalising, as the White Paper does, the idea that money can be shifted between hospitals and primary care rather than devoted to the needs of individual patients; and, most of all, how we can improve the effectiveness of public health and reduce the widening health inequalities in terms of life expectancy.
	The Secretary of State said that the White Paper is about a primary care-led NHS. It is not, because GPs are at the heart of primary care, and this does not put them in the driving seat—it puts primary care trusts in the driving seat. A PCT-led NHS is not what we should be looking for. We should have a patient-led NHS that does not try to manipulate from the top down, as the Government have done in the past and are proposing to do again. That approach has failed. There is much that we can applaud in the ideas behind the White Paper, but far too little to applaud in the mechanics of its implementation.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, albeit rather grudging support, for many of our proposals in the White Paper. He mentioned several issues, including palliative care, which we specifically deal with. That is enormously important. As a result of the increased funding over the next few years, including the money that we will shift from reduced administrative costs at a local level into front-line services, more money will go into local networks for palliative care, including better provision at home and in hospices for children who are terminally ill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred extensively to GPs, particularly in relation to the target for appointments. I remind him that, when we were first elected, patients were rightly complaining that they often had to wait days, and sometimes weeks, to get an appointment to see their GP. We introduced the target of 48 hours maximum to see a GP and 24 hours to see a nurse practitioner. That has improved the situation for very many patients. The hon. Gentleman still has not told us whether he would scrap that target, along with the other targets that have helped to achieve enormous improvements in NHS services. There are still problems, as I am the first to acknowledge. People sometimes find it difficult to get through to the GP service or to book an advance appointment. That is why we have already negotiated with the British Medical Association, as part of the new GP contract, the agreement that part of GPs' pay in future years will be linked to an independent survey of patient satisfaction. That is part of putting patients in the driving seat. If they are not happy with the appointments system and their ability to get appointments when they need them, that will be reflected accordingly in their GP's pay.
	The hon. Gentleman talked extensively about a return to GP fundholding. We are not going to return to fundholding, because it was unfair, created a two-tier system and ended up with hospitals trying to compete on price and undercutting each other to try to persuade GPs to enter into contracts with them, resulting in the most enormous administrative costs and unnecessary bureaucracy. We will do none of that. However, through practice-based commissioning, which will extend to every part of the country and every GP practice by the end of the year, we will give GPs and primary care practices much greater freedom and responsibility for the money that is spent on behalf of their patients in acute hospitals, including, of course, emergency admissions.
	The result is an enormous incentive to GPs and primary care practices to deliver much better care closer to home, reduce emergency admissions to hospitals, keep their patients healthier and save money, which will then be available to the practice to reinvest in better services.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the open contest for services in areas where they are inadequate. I said that, in six disadvantaged areas and many more to come, we are already holding open tenders through primary care trusts for the new primary care services. Applicants may be an existing GP practice that wants to expand, a nurse practitioner who wants to leave the service, a private firm, a not-for-profit organisation or a social enterprise, but the criteria—indeed, the whole process—will be open and transparent. Getting the best services for patients, with the best value for public money, will be the only thing that matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to primary care trusts. Local consultations are currently taking place in many parts of the country where primary care trusts propose to merge and change their boundaries. There is no doubt that, as we get more primary care trusts that are coterminous with a local social services authority, it will make joint working, which people rightly want, between social services and the local NHS much easier to achieve. It will mean stronger commissioning, especially of acute services, from primary care trusts, linked to much more choice for individual patients about health and social care, and a much stronger voice for them. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the chapter in the White Paper that covers the way in which we will strengthen the say of patients and users, including through independent surveys and a much stronger role for overview and scrutiny committees.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. There has been overspending, sometimes for some years, by a minority of organisations, and a small number consequently have serious financial problems. Of course, we must get those under control. Last week, I set out the way in which we shall support those organisations even further to deal with their problems.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it makes no sense to force patients to go to an acute hospital for an out-patient appointment, diagnostics or minor procedures if they can be done with good clinical quality safely, effectively and more conveniently for the patient in the local community. That is why the Royal College of Physicians and especially the Royal College of General Practitioners have worked with us closely to identify initially six specialties in which we will redesign the patient pathways to deliver more clinical care in the community. We set that out in some detail.
	The hon. Gentleman twice mentioned the extension of direct payments, not only to social care but to health. That sounds like the revival of the patient's passport. It appeared in the Conservative manifesto only nine months ago and was recently dropped, but I fear that it will re-emerge.
	The Conservative party voted against increased funding for the NHS. We have heard nothing from the Opposition spokesman about the crucial issue of health inequalities and ensuring fair funding for patients throughout the country. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's responses suggest that his leader's recent changes amount to all words and no substance. The Conservative party has not moved on one bit.

Sandra Gidley: I, too, would like to thank the Secretary of State for giving us advance notice of her statement. I was going to say that we had already seen a lot about it in the press, but a great deal of that was clearly speculation, and much of it has not appeared in the White Paper. It would be churlish not to welcome the broad thrust of the document, and I particularly welcome the proposal to deliver more services closer to people locally, the greater combining of health and social care—although it is not clear that the barriers between the two will be broken down completely; perhaps the Secretary of State could elaborate on that point—and the greater provision for carers. Surely, however, that last proposal would result in an increase in social services funding, which is already stretched. Funding for older people is often one of the first things to be squeezed.
	I must question the amount of money that was spent on the consultation. After spending money on gathering 1,000 people together, I am not sure that the Government have come up with anything of which we were not already aware. What new information was gained as a result of that expenditure?
	As always, the devil is in the detail, and we have a number of questions to ask the Secretary of State. We strongly support the principle of community-based care, but how will these services be accountable to local people? It is all very well to say that the overview and scrutiny committees will be beefed up, but ultimately they do not have any say over the health services, so where is the greater accountability? Regarding the proposal to expand the use of private profit-making companies in the running of GP services, how will those services be accountable to the taxpayer and the patient? What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that existing GPs will not be poached by private firms offering higher salaries? Will such proposals not mean that we could end up paying more for almost the same level of service?
	These proposals constitute an admission that the Government got it badly wrong when negotiating the   GP contract. Should not they have predicted that the public would want access to their GPs at weekends and in the evenings? How does the Secretary of State plan to fund and staff the proposed greater access desired by the public? Reliance on the patient satisfaction survey will account for only a small proportion of what is at present in the GP contract. Does this not mean that the GP contract will effectively have to be renegotiated if the Secretary of State is to achieve her aims?
	The public clearly liked the idea of health MOTs, and this is where the consultation seems to have been something of a sham. The Liberal Democrats believe that there is some merit in targeted health checks where there is evidence that they could be helpful. The public seem to want a more general health MOT, however, at various times of life. What they will actually get is an online tick-the-box exercise—a sort of "health MOT lite". So, despite these checks being targeted at areas of deprivation, there is no guarantee that they will reach the people who most need them. Will they not be just a sop to the worried well? What incentives will there be to ensure that the people who would most benefit from them will take them up and have their cases followed up?
	We welcome the idea of individual budgets, but the present take-up of direct payments is small. For the system to work, it must be sustained by a system of support and advocacy. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about that? She has also announced the introduction of a single assessment of health and care needs. Will she explain how that will differ from the single assessment process that is supposedly already in place but has not been fully implemented across the country?
	I echo the comments made about community hospitals. There have been reports that the private finance initiative budget is to be cut. Will the Secretary of State clarify that? Having acknowledged that community hospitals are a good thing and should not close due to budgetary pressures, will she ensure that some of the PFI budget is transferred to community hospitals, so that they can be brought up to date to enable them to deliver the testing and other local services on which she is so keen?
	The Secretary of State started by stating that the Government were six years into a 10-year programme of NHS improvement. Some would say, however, that they were six years into a 10-year programme of reorganisation, reorganisation, reorganisation. A primary care-led NHS has been promised before, but not delivered. Combining health and social care has been promised before, but not delivered. And increased health promotion has been promised before, but not delivered. When will the Government stop dithering and start delivering?

Patricia Hewitt: I was going to thank the hon. Lady for the welcome she gave to at least some of our proposals. She welcomed in particular the intention much better to integrate health and social care, but rightly said that there are some barriers to that. We acknowledge those very readily in the White Paper, in particular the fact that there are different funding systems for health and social care, with NHS care continuing, as it must, to be free at the point of need.
	Social care, of course, is offered on a different basis. We readily acknowledge that that is a problem, but, within that framework, we can still do far more: the single joint assessment of health and social care needs for people with complex conditions; the single health and care plan; far more joint commissioning by primary care trusts and local authority social services departments, in some cases pooling their budgets; and the requirement that, by 2008, local authorities and the local NHS should have joint health and care teams. All that will result in real improvements for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who depend on those different organisations working together to meet their individual needs.
	The hon. Lady raised a number of issues on local accountability. We set out in chapter 7 of the White Paper exactly what we intend to do to strengthen the local accountability of health and social care services. Overview and scrutiny committees, which already play an important part, will have more power, including the ability to institute their own review of a service where they believe, perhaps from their constituents, that a service is not doing well enough. That will be one of the triggers, to which we refer, that lead to a primary care trust needing to put in place an improvement programme or, in some cases, find a different provider for a particular service that is simply not satisfactory. Linked to that are not only independent surveys of patients and users—and not just for GP practices, but for other services—but the possibility of, for instance, user petitions and so on. All that will give people a much stronger say in the services they are getting.
	Building on what was a most successful public engagement that helped to bring forward new ideas from the public in the "your say" consultation—I am sorry the hon. Lady dismissed it so readily—we need at local level to achieve far more effective engagement of local people, particularly at an early stage, where there are proposals to reorganise hospital services. In doing that, we need to build on the success of many patient and public involvement forums.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the GP contract. It was a major concern of GPs and the British Medical Association that they did not want to be forced to continue to provide out-of-hours services. The new contract gave them that choice, with the responsibility falling back on PCTs if the local GP practice does not want to provide the out-of-hours service. For the first time, that new contract, which was negotiated three years ago, links the pay of GP practices to higher quality and the work they are doing, particularly to manage people with long-term conditions. That is an enormous step forward.
	On the health MOT, of course we have looked at the evidence, which makes it clear that we do not want to be screening everyone in the population ever year with all the different tests that can be done. That would not be a sensible use of NHS resources. Our proposal, which we have already discussed with members of our citizens panel and which is undoubtedly welcome, will result in people in high-risk groups getting the additional support and advice, and in some cases further tests, that they need. By piloting it in the most disadvantaged areas in the spearhead PCTs, we will ensure that it reaches the people who are most in need. I regret that the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who was busy criticising it in the press this morning, is not here. Perhaps he is also in the Liberal Democrat leadership contest.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) ended by criticising the NHS improvement plan. I remind her and others on the other side of the House that we have not only reduced hospital waiting lists to the lowest level since records began, but ensured that nobody has to wait more than six months for operations such as hip replacements, for which people used to wait more than 12 or 18 months, and sometimes more than two years, not so long ago.
	As a result of the NHS treating more people better and faster than ever before, death rates from breast cancer and, for men, from lung cancer, are falling faster in our country than anywhere else in the world. We will continue to deliver that kind of improvement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I note that the Front-Bench spokesmen have taken more than 40 minutes. I note, too, that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to be called. I ask that all supplementaries are brief, and the answers equally so.

Kevin Barron: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement in terms of strengthening primary care and particularly ill health prevention. In relation to the action that she proposes to strengthen GP surgeries in areas of high health inequalities, it is about time that that was done. After 50 years, when we consider the national health service—

Hon. Members: Short question.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have asked for brief questions.

Kevin Barron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after 50 years of the NHS being seen as just waiting for people to turn up at hospital, it is about time that we introduced the preventive agenda to stop that happening in 50 years' time?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am particularly proud that, over the next two years, as we continue to increase massively the funding of the NHS, we will also reduce massively the inequalities in funding in relation to the wealthiest areas, which are usually the healthiest areas, and ensure that the poorest areas, with the greatest health needs, get the funding that they need and deserve.

George Young: Members on both sides of the House will commend the Secretary of State's statement that we need to do more to provide more services within local communities. She must know, however, that the gravitational pull of the district general hospital, coupled with budgetary pressures, is leading to those local services leaving local communities. Andover hospital, for example, is about to lose general anaesthetics. Can she now answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked: what will she do to ensure that, in her words, "community facilities that are needed for the long term are not lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures", when those pressures actually come from her Department?

Patricia Hewitt: Those financial pressures come from the fact that in a few areas of the country, there has been over-spending on NHS budgets, even at a time when, year on year, the NHS is receiving more money than ever before, including in north-west Hampshire. As well as publishing the White Paper, I am ensuring that primary care trusts that are considering the closure of community facilities, and particularly community hospitals, review those in the light of the clear strategy that we have spelled out in the White Paper to ensure that they have the facilities that will be needed as more services are moved out of acute hospitals into the community. That is not only better for patients, which must be our No.1 concern, but provides better value for money.

Michael Meacher: While the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's proposals is extremely welcome and clearly right, does she accept the estimate of the King's Fund care and support inquiry that the extra investment required in care and support services is likely to be at least of the same order as that currently being injected into the NHS—a growth of about half in cash terms, or one third in real terms, in five years? Must that not also include a significant improvement in pay and terms and conditions for care and support workers who are currently in short supply, many of whom are paid even less than those who stack shelves in supermarkets?

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend raises an enormously important point. We are all awaiting with great interest the report on which Sir Derek Wanless is working for the King's Fund. The larger long-term issues that he raises about levels of funding for social care services, however, must await the next comprehensive spending review.

James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give some attention to a case in point, my constituency, where community hospitals, particularly Malmesbury, as well as those that serve theconstituency of my hon. Friend the Member forWestbury (Dr. Murrison)—Bradford-on-Avon, Warminster, Westbury, Melksham and Trowbridge— are under threat? Listening to the Secretary of State's statement, I believe that she is beginning to say that we ought to think again about closing those community hospitals. Since we are one of the 18 primary care trusts into which she has sent the heavy mob, will she tell us how the heavy mob will save money, if we are to believe her that community hospitals will be saved?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman rightly reflects the fact that parts of Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire have some of the most serious problems of overspending, and hence of deficits, in the country. That is why I announced last week that they would be helped by a new turnaround director. We, and they, will need to consider in more detail what is the right way to get spending under control. I very much hope that they will involve all NHS staff in identifying the waste and inefficiency that need to be rooted out to secure better value for money. It is in that context that they need to decide whether specific proposals relating to cottage or community hospitals are indeed the answer, or whether those settings represent future paths that need to be extended rather than diminished or closed.

Joan Humble: I welcome the key role for social services and social care in the White Paper, but will my right hon. Friend liaise with local authorities which, as she has acknowledged, are under enormous and growing pressure to deliver social care on the ground? They want to be full partners with health representatives in the delivery of the White Paper's proposals. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that happens?

Patricia Hewitt: I certainly will. My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. We want to avoid the short-term shuffling of responsibilities from one part of the system to another. The system works best when local authorities and social services departments work closely with the NHS, often pooling budgets and commissioning services jointly. More emphasis on prevention and supporting people in their homes and communities can prevent health crises and emergencies that would be much worse for those people, but also far more expensive to treat.

Simon Burns: I welcome any further moves to build on the work of this Government and the last Conservative Government by enabling health and social services departments to work more closely together and provide a seamless service. However, given the abandoning of the ring fence in 1997, how can we stop the practice of pilfering money that should be spent on social care to meet statutory requirements for children's care? That happens in the case of too many social services budgets, and has an adverse impact on the elderly.

Patricia Hewitt: I think that it was absolutely right to remove the ring fence. Local responsibility and local accountability are important when it comes to decisions about priorities. We are strengthening local area agreements, however, to ensure that local authorities—in partnership with other agencies, including the NHS—achieve the targets to which they have committed themselves, so that their objectives are realised and resources flow to where they are needed.

Patrick McFadden: How will the Secretary of State's proposals affect the voluntary sector, especially services such as the senior citizen link line based in Bilston, in my constituency, which was visited recently by her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne)? The service, run by volunteers, telephones 1,000 elderly people in Wolverhampton on a weekly basis. It supports patients who come out of hospital, accompanies them to the GP's surgery, and performs a series of other services which enable them to look after themselves in their own homes. What will the Department do to support such services in Wolverhampton and elsewhere?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I am delighted to congratulate the link line on its excellent work in supporting elderly people in particular.
	We have already announced the investment of an additional £80 million in telecare services that will make it even easier for elderly and, indeed, disabled people to be supported in their homes. I believe that there is an increasing role for the voluntary sector and social enterprises in providing services for, in particular, groups in the community to whose needs they may be especially attuned. The social enterprise unit that we are creating in the Department will help to support those third-sector providers.

Paul Burstow: What steps does the Secretary of State plan to take to end the confusion that exists between NHS and social services departments about what constitutes free care and what constitutes means-tested care, given last week's judicial review judgment that the Department's NHS continuing care guidance was flawed and was resulting in frail and vulnerable people being charged for care that should be free?

Patricia Hewitt: As we say in the White Paper, there are two different systems of funding, which can sometimes cause confusion in the agencies themselves and among people receiving care. However, the personal health and social care plans that we shall put in place, starting with the 250,000 or so people with the most complex needs, will help to make much clearer to everybody what services are being provided within the NHS, free at the point of need, and what may need to be charged for within the framework of the local authority assessment. We shall publish a national framework shortly, which will also help to clarify matters.

Howard Stoate: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly her aim to create a primary care-led, prevention-oriented NHS, especially as regards chronic diseases and inequalities. In my area, however, the acute trust employs 611 nurses while the primary care trust, which covers roughly the same area, employs only 176 community nurses and 49 practice nurses. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to address the huge inequality and imbalance between the secondary care and primary sectors so that we can start to make a real difference to primary care?

Patricia Hewitt: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He is, I think, the only general practitioner in the House at the moment, and he makes an important point. As more services are delivered in the community and as resources shift towards prevention and support in the community for people with long-term conditions, we should expect more of our staff, particularly nursing staff, to be employed in the community rather than in acute hospital trusts. Many nurses across the country would welcome that, and both the stronger commissioning role of primary care trusts and practice-based commissioning will help to ensure that that shift in resources takes place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government were elected on a manifesto promising encouragement of community hospitals in our national health service. If the Secretary of State's words today are to mean anything, will she consider the situation in my constituency, where two out of four community hospitals have already closed their in-patient facilities and where the other two are in a parlous predicament? Whatever the arguments are about finance and deficits, that is simply unacceptable to my constituents.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman will, I know, welcome the fact that there are more than 1,800 more nurses and more than 1,400 more doctors in Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire than there were eight years ago. On proposals for local service reconfiguration, I can say that the proposals need to be developed locally by the primary care trusts in consultation with local people. They need to be subject to extensive local consultation, and they would come to me if they were referred to me by one of the overview and scrutiny committees. I believe that that is the right process. The important thing is for the primary care trusts to examine their proposals in the light of our White Paper and to ensure that they consult local people on the best way forward.

Sharon Hodgson: I, too, welcome the patient-centred approach to health care and the much-needed focus on prevention. May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the all-party group on breast cancer's report on screening, which recommends increasing flexibility for breast screening services? It found that one in six women who miss an appointment do so because the appointment was not convenient. They never get around to rearranging it. Will the Secretary of State outline what will be done to ensure that breast screening is more patient-centred?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an enormously important point that underlines the importance of designing services as much as possible around the needs of the individual. With hospital appointments, for instance, we are already giving people a choice of at least four hospitals or clinics for an acute operation. As choose and book is rolled out, it will be possible to book a convenient appointment for the patient through the electronic system.
	As we move of the screening services into the community, it will be much easier for patients to get an appointment at the time they need it, rather than one that they are simply told to turn up for.

Richard Taylor: I welcome the emphasis on mental well-being and the greater use of psychological therapies, but I am puzzled as to how that can happen. Shortages of clinical psychologists are extreme: in my patch, patients can wait up to a year and I understand that appointments for clinical psychologists are not subject to targets.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course we need to do more to train and recruit people, not only at consultant level but at psychotherapist and counsellor level, to support people who need more support in dealing with depression and other forms of mental illness. We will shortly announce the location of two demonstration sites, where we will trial some of the new approaches—in particular, a more extensive use of cognitive behavioural therapy.

Charlotte Atkins: I welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the best primary care trusts, such as Staffordshire Moorlands, are already pioneering much preventive work? For instance, the trust has introduced community matrons to work with vulnerable patients to prevent emergency admissions to hospitals, deep vein thrombosis testing, prevention of falls programmes and GPs' surgeries every Saturday and Sunday in the local community hospital.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that her primary care trust and many others are doing in developing exactly that approach is the foundation on which we have created the White Paper. Many examples of excellent practice are given throughout the White Paper, including the use of community matrons—one of our innovations—to support people who need long-term care. What we now need to do is seize the opportunity that stronger commissioning and practice-based commissioning give us to ensure that the best practice in some parts of the country becomes the norm in every part of the country.

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State talked about fully engaging the local community. In my constituency, tens of thousands of people have been fully engaged in opposing the cuts to the acute hospital. Will the statement today mean that those cuts will be reversed or will they go ahead because of the deficits in our trust?

Patricia Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are financial problems in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. There has been overspending even within a substantially increased NHS budget—a budget against which his party voted. There has been extensive consultation in that area on a reorganisation of services that will make much better use of NHS resources, give people high quality acute and emergency care, and give them better services within the community.

Michael Jabez Foster: How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the target intentions that she mentioned affect Hastings, which is a very poor area within a rich region? Will the changes to the PCT mean that that will be diluted? How will she ensure that poor areas within rich areas benefit in the way that she intends?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we set out the criteria for PCTs that were looking at new boundaries, we said that they needed to satisfy themselves and us that they would be able both to have effective commissioning of acute hospital services and to maintain the focus on local communities, especially the most disadvantaged. Where there is general public support for a proposal to merge several primary care trusts into a much larger area, one of the issues we will consider is how we may sustain that local focus and, in particular, how we may ensure that funding continues to go to the areas that need it most.

Vincent Cable: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's health checks do not involve checks by doctors or nurses but people filling in self-assessment forms supported by health trainers? Who are those health trainers and will they be clinically qualified?

Patricia Hewitt: I am happy to make it clear that in the first instance the NHS life check will not be carried out by GPs or nurses. That would not be the best use of those resources, so the first stage will be the self-assessment process. Then people in the higher risk categories will be offered the help of a health trainer—a proposal that came from the public and was in the "Choosing Health" White Paper—and the first of them are being employed in the most disadvantaged areas, in the spearhead primary care trusts where we shall be piloting the NHS life check. For people in high risk categories who may need more than the support of a health trainer, there would be follow-up by a nurse practitioner, a GP or some other qualified clinician.

Points of Order

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Speaker give help and guidance to provide more time for Members who have questions on the Order Paper? During Department for Culture, Media and Sport Question Time only seven Members whose names were on the Order Paper were called, whereas during Church Commissioners questions eight names on the Order Paper were called. Is it possible either that Ministers responding could be asked to give briefer answers or that the time for Church questions could be reduced so that the time for questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could be increased? That would give me an opportunity to mention Colchester's success in the FA cup.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As hon. Members know, Mr. Speaker is always keen to have contributions from as many Back Benchers as possible. Although we only got to Question 8 on the Order Paper, in fact 30 questions were asked and answered in total. However, it is always helpful if supplementaries are kept short and answers from Ministers are equally short.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a sense, I am the wrong Member to raise this point of order, as you were kind enough to call me during the statement, but I noticed that Front Benchers' questions and answers took almost three quarters of an hour of the hour and five minutes for the statement, which is unprecedented in my 14 years as a Member of Parliament. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, be kind enough to draw that to Mr. Speaker's attention to see whether discussions between the usual channels could take place so that ministerial statements and questions could be kept a little shorter to give the large number of Back Benchers who could not get in today the chance to speak in future on important subjects such as the statement that we heard today?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the statement that I made immediately the Front Benchers sat down. I have noted the matter; it is on the record and it will be brought to Mr. Speaker's attention. Despite that and the programme motion, I allowed the debate to continue for some considerable time. I have every sympathy.

Charles Walker: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Front Benchers have long statements to make on serious subjects, would it be possible to agree with them that Back Benchers could have longer for questions, so that, for example, I could raise important issues about the possible closure of the accident and emergency department at Chase Farm hospital?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The point has been well made. I have noted it, as have many Back Benchers.

Michael Penning: On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no criticism of the Lobby—I sat upstairs with my friends in the Lobby for many years—but it received copies of the statement long before Members, so we had no opportunity to appraise what was being said. The Lobby receives the statement immediately the Minister stands up, yet we do not receive it in the Chamber. Can you look into that matter, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that members of the Lobby receive the statement when the Secretary of State stands up. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the statement is brought into the Chamber fairly soon afterwards. That is a comparatively recent practice that has been adopted.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
	That—
	1. the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	2. the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 7th February at four o'clock; and
	3. at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.
	[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Somebody clearly has a mechanical instrument of some kind. Perhaps they could immediately leave the Chamber and switch the instrument off. If it is a microphone, my apologies to hon. Members present.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Government of Wales Bill
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 January].

[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2005–06, Government White Paper: Better Governance for Wales, HC 551, and the Government's response thereto, Third Special Report from the Committee, Session 2005–06, HC 839.]

Clause 103
	 — 
	Proposal for Referendum by Assembly

Amendment proposed [24 January]: No. 110, in page 57, line 13, to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words—
	'(3) The Secretary of State must—
	(a) within the period of 120 days beginning immediately after the day upon which it is received consult upon—
	(i) the voting system, and
	(ii) the number of Assembly members of an Assembly after the Assembly Act provisions have come into force, and
	(b) within the period of 180 days after the end of the consultation—
	(i) lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under section 102(1) before each House of Parliament, or
	(ii) give notice in writing to the First Minister of the Secretary of State's refusal to do so and the reasons for that refusal.'.—[Ian Lucas.]
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Paul Murphy: Six days ago, I was stopped mid-sentence when referring to Splott market, and hon. Members may or may not recall that the purpose of my mentioning the market in Splott or any other marketplace in Wales was to try to bring to the House's attention the fact that constitutional matters, such as those that we are discussing, may be of enormous interest to us, as politicians, and perhaps to academics, but the Bill and any legislation passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords refers to people's lives. Hon. Members will recall that, over the past one and a quarter hours, the House has been dealing with an extremely important matter regarding the health service. So I make no apology to the House for saying that the basis for every Bill that we consider must be an improvement in the services that our people receive in Wales. However, we must understand that the way in which the Assembly Members are held to account by the people of Wales through the ballot box is also of great interest to our constituents. The amendment refers to the need to have proper consultation in the months ahead on the nature of the electoral system—in particular, the so-called top-up system—under which the National Assembly for Wales is elected.
	If hon. Members look at clauses 8 and 9 or paragraph 57 of the explanatory notes, they will see a rather convoluted and complicated description of how the so-called top-up Members are elected. That is for us to consider, but I recall that when I left the polling station after voting during the first election to the Assembly, a little old lady came out with me, clutching what she thought was a manifesto or an election address from a political party. As it turned out, it was the second ballot paper for the top-up Members. She asked me what to do with it, and I suggested that she should go back into the polling station and vote according to her conscience. But she did not know what that paper represented, and there had been plenty of publicity about the nature of the second electoral system.
	The figures speak for themselves about how it is that our constituents do not understand what it is that they do when they go into the polling station to vote in the second ballot. For example, my constituency is in the South Wales East region, which has almost 500,000 electors. At the last election—this applies to all parties other than mine—the Liberal Democrat, Mr.   Michael German, won. He gained 17,661 second votes out of 500,000—3.76 per cent. of the people in South Wales East. At the same time, he stood for my constituency—Torfaen—and received 2,746 votes. Of course, he did not win, but he did win in the ballot for the top-up seats. It is virtually impossible for people in our constituencies to understand how it is that they pile up their votes—for example, in South Wales East, for Labour—yet none of them count in determining the second group of people who are elected to the National Assembly for Wales. Therefore, we need to take a very serious look at that system. Proportionality seems to be the answer for the second ballot. Why do people who elect Assembly Members not have them elected on the basis of proportionality and according to the votes that they cast?

Mark Tami: I have had the same experience as my right hon. Friend. People at the count have asked me how many candidates we have had elected only to find out that, despite topping the poll, we have had none. That is the same for any political party. Clearly the longer this flawed system goes on, the more it will act as a disincentive for people to take part in the second vote. They think that a vote for whatever party will not deliver them anything.

Paul Murphy: There is complete confusion among the electors of south Wales, north Wales and middle Wales about the whole question of how votes are distributed.

Hywel Williams: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that he has just made with the evidence provided by the Electoral Commission to the Welsh Affairs Committee that this was not a contentious issue? Certainly it was not a topic of conversation on the bus in Dowlais.

Paul Murphy: I disagree with the Electoral Commission, and I do so on the basis that I have been elected to various bodies in Wales for the past 40 years. The people in this Chamber have been elected by the people who send them here and we talk to our constituents. The Electoral Commission is absolutely wrong and it is about time that it started listening to the people whom we represent.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is making the point that there is widespread and large concern among his constituents and, indeed, throughout Wales. However, would he care to share with the Committee all the letters and e-mails that he has had about this system over the years that the Assembly has been in existence? I would like that large body of evidence to be made available to everybody. If he has such a large body of evidence, we will all be able to understand it. However, the Electoral Commission says that there is no such body of evidence.

Paul Murphy: If the hon. Lady came to Wales and asked people—whether in Pontypool market, Splott market or anywhere else—what they thought about the second system of electing Members of the Assembly, I have not the slightest doubt that they would show confusion and a complete lack of understanding.

Wayne David: Obviously, democracy depends upon understanding, so can my right hon. Friend tell us what percentage of the population understand the d'Hondt system?

Paul Murphy: I suppose that I am one of the few people in the world who does because, as my hon. Friend knows, the d'Hondt system has been used in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday agreement.

Cheryl Gillan: I must admit that the d'Hondt system is enough to confuse anybody; I am not necessarily supporting a system. However, surely the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to rely on prompted questions to his constituents or people in Wales. If the concern is widespread, there must be some spontaneous evidence of that in the form of letters and e-mails to all the hon. Members in Wales. I can assure him that my hon. Friends who represent Wales have not received enormous postbags containing concerns about this issue, so we would very much like to see his evidence.

Paul Murphy: Those Members did not receive such postbags because only one of them was elected to the Assembly under the first-past-the-post system. [Interruption.] We do not need e-mails and letters. Let us walk around the streets and go to the markets in our constituencies to talk to the people whom we represent and who know about politics. Despite what the Electoral Commission, academics and e-mails say, those people will say that the system is flawed and discredited. They will certainly say that it is unloved.
	Much against my better judgment, I supported the system when I was a member of the Government. In the early days when we discussed the best system for the National Assembly, my personal preference would have been for first past the post. There is no better system than one that has a direct link between the Member in the Assembly or Parliament and those who elected him. If we are to have a different system—I accept that there is a case for having a slightly different system for the devolved institutions—it is right to consider the alternatives. However, I simply think that the one that has been chosen is the worst of the lot.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have been to Splott market, as a matter of fact, because my daughter lived in Splott until very recently, but I have not heard anyone in Splott showing any concern about the subject, and much less in the part of north Wales that I represent. May I take the right hon. Gentleman back briefly to the point about the d'Hondt system made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr.   David)? The right hon. Gentleman says that the existing system is complicated, outmoded and flawed. Would he thus support our amendment to clause 29 that would stop the use of that system for determining the composition of Committees?

Paul Murphy: I will have a look at the amendment when it comes up, but we are dealing with something totally different at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I referred to the markets when talking about the way in which the Assembly relates to people in Wales and their lives, whether that is due to its impact on the health service, education or any other matter. An electoral system that cannot be, and is not, understood by people is flawed. The problem is that the second system that we are using does not produce a result that is proportionate to the votes cast for the second group of Assembly Members. I could live with it if the system was properly proportionate, but those Members are added to first-past-the-post Members and people simply do not understand how their votes can pile up, yet be useless.

Lembit �pik: I am listening to the debate with great interest, although I suggest that we might be pre-empting a later group of amendments about the process. As we are having such a discussion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? If he thinks that the public are so dissatisfied because people who do not win an election in a constituency can nevertheless be elected, will he explain why he does not feel ashamed of being a member of a party that refuses to change an electoral system that is such that his party can become the Government of the United Kingdom with one third of the vote? Two thirds of the electorate voted against Labour, yet it formed the Government. The logical consequence of what he says is presumably that he would also like to change

Sylvia Heal: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are very wide of the amendment.

Paul Murphy: As tempted as I am to comment on the hon. Gentleman's points, I shall leave that for another debate.
	Amendment No. 110 is precisely about consultation. I am expressing my personal views to the Committee. The   hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs.   Gillan) talks about e-mails and other hon. Members mention letters and a lack of consultation, but the amendment would allow us to find out people's opinions. I am not prepared to listen to the Electoral Commission so that it can make up my mind on what the people of Wales think. There should be a properly co-ordinated and constituted consultation on the nature of our electoral system. That might result in agreement with the system that we have. I simply say that if a system is not understood, it is not a good system.

Cheryl Gillan: Does it follow that the right hon. Gentleman will support our amendments to the provisions in clause 7 that will bring about changes to the electoral system with absolutely no consultation of the people of Wales whatsoever?

Paul Murphy: I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the proposed changes regarding dual candidacy. One of the bad effects of the present system is that it creates problems of dual candidacy, which I shall not discuss now because that is for another time this afternoon. Such problems result directly from the existing system. That is why I think that it should go, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. The amendment would establish consultation. We should ask the people of Wales what they think about the system.
	There are a number of alternatives. Some years ago, several of us suggested that there should be 80 Assembly Members, with two elected for each constituency. That would have solved the problem of gender balance in my party. We would have been able to elect those Members by the alternative vote, which would have been a different method from the first-past-the-post system. Lord Richard recommended using the single transferable vote. I am not too keen on that, but it would produce something that was more understandable than the existing system. I would not support it, but at least I can see the sense behind it, which is not the case for the existing system.That is why I support the amendment. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will consider it carefully and reflect on the need to ask people in Wales what they think about the current system. There is a risk to the legitimacy of the Assembly and to solid, firm, sound and strong government because of the results that the current system produces. Worst of all is the fact that the system is not easily understood by the people. That makes it a bad system.
	There are many ways of reforming the arrangementsa single vote, a single constituency for the top-up Members from the whole of Wales, or some other system but the present system is not doing the job. In my view it should go, but at least we should examine it.

Albert Owen: I too shall speak in favour of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and I shall take up a couple of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about the confusion in the current system. The amendment is sensible because, as we are asking for a referendum about more powers, and the Assembly creating Acts, it is only right and proper that we should consider how Members are elected to carry out that new responsibility, and also how many Members are needed to conduct proper scrutiny of the additional responsibilities and powers that will be bestowed if the referendum supports them.
	One concern about the amendment is that it curtails the consultation to 120 days. That is a little ambitious. However, if the Assembly and the two Houses of Parliament allow additional powers, I presume that the debate will already have begun, and people will be finding out how the scrutiny works, and whether additional Members are needed.
	In my opinion, additional powers and responsibilities will mean additional Members. The part of the Bill that will come into force is about enhanced powers, and I believe that there is flexibility within the current arrangements for the National Assembly to deal with those powers. However, for full primary legislation we need to examine the number of Assembly Members who will undertake that work, so I am grateful that the amendment was tabled.
	The present electoral system is flawed and confusing to members of the public. In 1999 I was a candidate in the Ynys Mn constituency. I was the runner-up, I have no complaint about the fact that the people voted for their candidate. That time was the high-water mark for nationalism in Wales, and the nationalists had a runaway success; ever since then they have been in continuous decline, and I think that that will go on into the next Assembly elections. The winner won, and the first-past-the-post system clearly identified who the people of Ynys Mn wanted as their Assembly Member. I was the runner-up, yet through the list system the Conservative, who came third, was elected as an Assembly Member. The runner-up was out of the game, but the candidate who came third was elected. If that is not confusing for people, I do not know what is.

Lembit �pik: I apologise for being out of order before, Mrs. Heal, but given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I am sure that I will be in order if I now ask him to explain how he justifies to people who are confused the fact that a party that two thirds of the electorate voted against formed the Government. How would he justify that, according to the democratic principles that he is now supporting?

Albert Owen: You said that the hon. Gentleman was wide of the mark when he first asked that question, Mrs. Heal, so I presume that you would be consistent and say that if were to stray into that area, I would be wide of the mark as well. However, the honest response is that we are talking about proportionality. When people vote for the National Assembly for Wales on a second ballot, they are voting for a party to represent them in that region, so many thousands of people are disfranchised because of the current d'Hondt system, which is there to help the minority parties and other parties that do not win constituency seats. That is a serious flaw.

Ian Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the most recent Assembly elections in north Wales, the Liberal Democrats put out a leaflet telling people not to waste their second vote by voting Labour, because the person for whom they would be voting would never be elected? They were absolutely right, because despite topping the poll in north Wales, no Labour top-up Members were elected.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend, who has raised this matter before, is right. The inconsistency in the Liberal Democrats' argument does not surprise me in the least. What does shock me, however, is the fact that many people are disfranchised, and we need to address that. The consultation can be used to demonstrate the arguments and allow people to have their say, which would lead to greater clarity.

Hywel Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against proportionality as expressed in the d'Hondt system, or against proportionality in general? If he is in favour of proportionality, which system would he like?

Albert Owen: I was coming to my preference, but I am against the d'Hondt system, because it is confusing and people do not get what they want. When electors vote in a region for a particular party which is identified as a second vote, distinct from the first vote, they should get proportionately what they voted for. I would prefer the additional Member system to be one of strict proportionality if the single transferable vote is used.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am desperately concerned that we are deep in a debate which, in fact, relates to the group of amendments on the way in which we elect Assembly Members. I therefore seek your guidance, as there is a danger that if we conduct such debates on each group of amendments we will never reach that particular group.

The First Deputy Chairman: I thought I made it clear that hon. Members must confine their remarks to the amendment under discussion. Despite the temptation, they should not go far beyond that.

Albert Owen: I accept your guidance, Mrs. Heal, but I am referring to the amendment, which talks about changing the voting system and the number of Assembly Members. In response to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), my preference is for 80 additional Members, with two for each constituency, in an alternative vote system, as that would give people a choice. If we increased the number of additional Members and kept the constituencies, I would prefer to have a straight STV, because that would be a simpler and quicker method and people would understand the proportionality involved. That is the way forward. The current system is flawed, and I do not understand why hon. Members are afraid to consult the people of Wales. If we accept, as the result of a referendum, that people want additional powers we should consider how we will elect Assembly Members.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman is rightly talking about consultation on the powers, the method of election and the number of Assembly Members. Does he not agree, however, that there was such a consultation recently under the cross-party commission chaired by Lord Richard? What weight does he give its recommendations?

Albert Owen: I certainly give greater weight to the general election that has just taken place. The manifesto of the party that received the greatest number of votes in Wales made provision for the Bill. That is democracy. At the top of the agenda of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party, were full law-making powers equivalent to those in Scotland. That was rejected in my constituency and many other constituencies, so I give a great deal of weight to what the people of Wales say. When the time is appropriate, we should conduct a consultation.

Elfyn Llwyd: As I recall, the Welsh Labour manifesto did not say that the party would gerrymander the voting system at all, but that is what the proposal amounts to. More importantly, on the question of consultation, Iremind the hon. Gentleman that the Electoral Commission was consulted, but its view was thrown away. The Arbuthnot commission in Scotland has been consulted, but its advice has been rejected out of hand. The thousands of people, including myself, who gave evidence to the Richard commission count for nothing in the eyes of the Governmentagain, our views are just thrown away.

Albert Owen: Nothing has been thrown away. I repeat that we had a general election in which the Conservative party advocated no change in Wales. However, the Labour party is the single biggest party in Wales, and the general election provided us with an important mandate, which we must carry out.
	When we consider enhanced primary powers for the National Assembly, we must consult to ensure that we get the right number of Members, who should be elected under a less flawed system. I will listen to the Secretary of State with great interest, because this is our only opportunity to vote on additional Members. If the referendum concerns only primary powers, then the opportunity will be lost.
	I want to improve the way in which Members are elected, and I want Members to be more accountable. The biggest difference between me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is that I want the additional Members, whom we need, to be appointed regionally, because the additional Members should consider regional interests and take a strategic view.
	I will listen to the Secretary of State, because the amendment is important and this is our only opportunity to consider the subject. I also look forward to the winding-up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).

Cheryl Gillan: I do not want to delay the Committee and shall make a couple of brief points.
	I have some sympathy with amendment No. 110. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) wants to empower the Secretary of State to consult the people of Wales on the voting system for the Assembly and on the number of Assembly Members, if we reach the stage at which the people of Wales are afforded a referendum on the granting of full legislative powers. I approve of consulting the people of Wales, but I wish that he had been more supportive when Conservative Members made that point.
	Methinks they doth protest too much; make no mistake that the voting system is the Labour party's voting system. The hon. Member for Wrexham was in a significant position when the proposal was introduced, so I do not sympathise with his pre-empting the people of Wales by imposing his will on the situation.
	The amendment is dishonest. Although it mentions the number of Assembly Members, it does not refer to the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in this House if full legislative powers were given to the Welsh Assembly after a referendum.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: I will not give way, because I have intervened enough.
	I would have been more inclined to support the amendment had it involved an opportunity to discuss representation in this House, as well as representation in the Assembly, and if the change to the voting system had not been selected by the Labour party.

Dai Havard: It is shame that we do not have time to continue to explore the Opposition's arguments.
	On Second Reading, I mentioned my concern that the Bill refers to the referendum question. Part of my motivation in supporting the amendment is having this debate. Without the amendment, we would not have had this debate, which is important for the people of Wales.
	Opposition Members have referred to my constituency, because on Second Reading I mentioned what people on the bus in Merthyr said. As my hon. Friends have said, people are confused, because in my constituency 47 per cent. of them voted for a second representative and got nothing. People do not feel that that is fair, which is the usual claim made on behalf of the system. The system engineers a situation between the parties in the institution of government, which is why I oppose it. It breaks the link between the people and their representatives, but I do not have time further to explore that argument.
	My motivation was to stress that we needed to discuss this at some point, because I feared that the Bill closed the argument down instead of opening it up. The amendment would facilitate that discussion, but in a particular context; that is, assuming that there will be a referendum about primary law-making powers. The present situation is unhealthy in terms of democracy and of the institution's ability to build its capacity and gain its own legitimacy. At some point, the dog's breakfast that is the current voting system must be sorted out.

Lembit �pik: I understand that there are some arguments in favour of this change, but we have not heard them tonight. The extraordinary revelations in certain contributions by Labour Members underline the fact that this is political opportunism. This is not about finding the best system, because if Members wanted to do that, they would be able to answer this question. Why do they think that it is absolutely fine for the Government to have a large majority although two thirds of the British electorate voted against them in the general election? Sadly, they do not have an answer.
	Without going too far into the debate that we will have later on the merits and demerits of the voting system, I hope that the Minister can explain the contradiction between what his Back Benchers said and what those Opposition Members who secured a majority of the vote in Wales, and who are opposed to this change, said at election time and are saying now.

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to the measured way in which the Committee has approached the scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that much of the Billindeed, 140 out of 165 clausesis carried over, with only minor modifications, from the Government of Wales Act 1998, or implements changes on which all parties are agreed. We have properly focused our scrutiny on those clausesjust 25that are new or controversial instead of reopening debates that were settled six years ago and procedures that have worked well since. I am particularly pleased with the detailed consideration of parts 3 and 4, which form the core of the new provisions. I hope that we can make good progress on the initial clauses of part 1, which include the remaining key provisions of the Bill.
	The amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and supported by myright hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr.   Murphy) touches on two separate but related issues; the system of voting used to elect the Assembly and the number of Assembly Members.
	On the voting system, I understand and respect the position of my hon. and right hon. Friends; indeed, I share many of their concerns about the operation of the present system. In retrospect, all Labour Members would have preferred a different option. However, achieving the necessary consensus on a new electoral system would not be easy. For example, a return to first past the post, with a man and a woman elected from each constituency, would ensure equal representation, but it would also decimate representation for minor parties, including the Welsh Conservatives. That would be seen as deliberately partisan; politically desirable from our point of view, perhaps, but constitutionally very difficult, to say the least.
	I believe that the best way forward is to seek to fix the flaws in the current electoral system through a ban on dual candidacy. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends strongly support that. I hope that they also support clause 36(6), which requires the establishment of a code of conduct to ease some of the tensions between constituency and list Members. I hope that the Assembly Committee that is considering Standing Orders will also consider allowances for the different categories of Member.
	With regard to the number of Assembly Members, I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the Assembly's increased workload, but there is plenty of scope for it to reorganise; for example, by changing the way in which it considers secondary legislation and by sitting longer hours for more weeks of the year. The Presiding Officer has made that point publicly in agreeing with me.
	A fundamental difficulty with the amendment is that it would require unspecified further primary legislation to resolve the issues that my hon. and right hon. Friends have rightly highlighted. There is no guarantee that a Government sympathetic to their views would be in power at the time of such a review. Perhaps a different amendment would be appropriate to achieve my hon. Friends' proper objectives but I am not inciting them to table one on Report.
	In the light of my comments, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's measured response, which I contrast with the rather graceless contribution of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). She suggested that the amendment was somehow dishonest because it did not make clear the fact that there would be a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament if Assembly membership increased. It was especially graceless because the hon. Lady intervened on me in our debate last Tuesday to ask me a question to which I gave a straight reply; she is clearly not accustomed to that. It is therefore unfortunate that she would not allow me to intervene on her to remind her of that fact. Never mind.
	I respect the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My concern about the Bill has always been that we are contemplating a position that is some years ahead and we do not know how successful the Order process will prove. We do not know exactly how the Assembly will perform between now and then. In those circumstances, it would be sensible for us to have at least an opportunity to consider the voting system and the number of Assembly Members. More important, the people of Wales should have that opportunity.
	The amendment was clearly a probing amendment at this stage. My right hon. Friend has heard that there is a great desire on Government and Opposition Benches for a debate on the issue. I assure him that that extends to the people of Wales.
	I am sure that we will return to the matter but, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104
	  
	Commencement of Assembly Act provisions

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 104, page 57, line 38, at end add
	'(5)   This section is subject to section [Commencement of provisions relating to Welsh language].'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 35, page 21, line 35, leave out from 'effect' to 'to' in line 36 and insert
	'save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so'.
	Amendment No. 16, in clause 61, page 36, line 10, at end add
	', including the implementation of any of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993.'.
	New clause 10Commencement of provisions relating to Welsh language
	'(1)   Sections 106 to 112 and 114 shall come into force on 1st April 2007 in respect of paragraph 20 of Schedule 7 (the Welsh language).
	(2)   Section 102 shall not apply to the commencement of subsection (1).'.

Hywel Williams: I begin with amendment No. 13, which would delete the words
	so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable
	in clause 35 and replace them with,
	save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so.
	The wording in clause 35 comes from the Welsh Language Act 1993. I hope that hon. Members of all parties recognise that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with its operation. One reason for that is the wording that the amendment would delete. We argue that it places Welsh speakers at a disadvantage. Because of the clause, Welsh is not equal with English but is to
	be treated on a basis of equality,
	which is entirely different and has led to the Welsh language being treated less equally. The provision has been characterised as meaning that all languages are equal but some are more equal than others.
	I should like to make a few brief points about the long and gradual journey of the status of the Welsh language to its current position. Welsh was used in government as an official language until the Act of Union 1532. Three measures in the past centurythe Welsh Courts Act 1942, the Welsh Language Act 1967 and the Welsh Language Act 1993have covered the subject.

David Davies: On a historical point, there was no Wales-wide Government prior to the Acts of Union. There were various Marcher lordships, which were pretty much a law unto themselves, and Welsh-speaking feudal lords, who controlled other areas. There was no Wales from the point of the view of government and it is therefore not correct to say that Welsh was the language used in government before the 1532 Act.

Elfyn Llwyd: It was used.

Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for making the point that the Welsh language was used, although perhaps not exclusively. We can avoid having these historical discussions simply by recognising that, at one time, Welsh had a different status from the one that it enjoys today. Perhaps we can also agree that progress has been made as a result of the three pieces of legislation that I have mentioned, most recently the Welsh Language Act 1993, which was passed by the Conservative Government.

David Davies: Supported by Labour.

Hywel Williams: Not all of them.
	The Welsh Courts Act 1942 allowed the use of Welsh in the courts, while the Welsh Language Act 1967 provided for the equal validity of anything said in Welsh or English. It conferred a kind of honorary status on the Welsh language. I have already mentioned the 1993 Act.
	Our amendment would provide not for full equality, but for a reasonable and gradual move in that direction. It would allow for circumstances in which Welsh need not be used on the same basis as English, but that would involve exceptional cases in which it would not reasonably be possible to do so, in contrast to the provisions in the 1993 Act. We hold that that would be entirely reasonable, because we do not want the language to be used when it would be unreasonable to do so.
	I shall give the House a brief example, involving some work that I did before I was elected to the House. I was proof-reading a quality assurance manual in Welsh, although it was going to be superseded in four months. I was paid quite well for doing the work, but it was a complete waste of time. We would not want to see the Welsh language being used if it were unreasonable to do so. However, we believe that such cases would be exceptional.
	Given the exemplary development of the Assembly's simultaneous translation service, the quality of its translations, the large number of Assembly Members who speak Welsh or who have learnt itvery well indeed, to their creditand the growing number of Assembly staff who speak Welsh, it would be entirely possible to introduce the provisions in our amendment. It would be quite proper for the National Assembly for Wales to treat equally the two languages that are widely used in Wales.
	A growing number of young people speak Welsh as the result of educational changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government and by this Government, and I pay proper tribute to those Governments for doing that. Changes in the demography of Wales mean that more young people than older people speak Welsh, and there is a growing use of the Welsh language by private businesses. The National Assembly could give a clear lead by treating the Welsh language more equally, if I can put it like that. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister argues that the present situationwhich is characterised by the Welsh language being treated unequallyis acceptable, given the advantages of our amendments. They would provide for the principle being breached in exceptional circumstances.
	I note that amendment No. 16 is also supported by the Conservatives. It would add to the list of subjects that the Welsh Ministers may consider it appropriate to support:
	the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993.
	Clause 61 contains a long list of subjects that the Minister might care to support, starting with archaeological remains in Wales and ending with the Welsh language. The Welsh language certainly should not be classed as archaeological remains; it is a living language spoken by a quarter of the population as a whole, and by a third of young people in Wales. Welsh is getting younger. The amendment would add
	the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993
	to that list, so that Ministers could do anything that they considered appropriate in respect of culture, including the implementation of the Act.
	As I said earlier, the principle behind the Welsh Language Act 1993 was to treat the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality, but there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the Act has been operated. However, given that we have the Act, even in its present form, it would seem reasonable that Ministers should be able to act to support its implementation.
	This amendment should also be considered in the context of the First Minister's decision to bring the Welsh Language Board into the Welsh Assembly Government. It is entirely unclear to me and to a great many others how that will be done. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain.
	The 1993 Act set up the board, which carries out certain functions. It seems to me that, for the board to disappear, we might need another language Act. If it were set up by an Act, it should be taken into the Welsh Assembly Government by another Act. On that, the First Minister is equally unclear.
	There is then the question of the regulatory functions of the board. The First Minister talks about setting up an office of y dyfarnwr, which means the adjudicator or the referee. It is unclear to me on what legal basis that office would be set up, as there is no reference to such a person in the 1993 Act. What power will he or she have to ensure the proper implementation of that Act? Where are these ideas laid out? I have no idea; perhaps the Secretary of State has. Whatever the fate of the Welsh Language Board in 2007, given that uncertainty, we would argue that it is feasible for Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government to be able to support the implementation of the 1993 Act.
	Lastly, amendment No. 124 and new clause 10 are more contentious, or perhaps less. They would allow for the commencement of Welsh language provisions in respect of Assembly Acts that begin on 1 April 2007; that is, the Assembly could pass one of its measures in respect of the Welsh language immediately in 2007, without having gone through a referendum. That is a peculiar exception. It would apply only to the Welsh language and to no other field. There are several reasons for proposing it.
	I have already referred to the widespread dissatisfaction with the 1993 Act. By the way, that Act was introduced in the face of much opposition from no other person than the First Minister, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, who was a Member of Parliament at that time and, I think, shadow Secretary of State. He promised the House that the new Labour Government would introduce a proper Welsh language Act, but, eight years later, we are still waiting.
	In those circumstances, why should not the Assembly have the opportunity to use its power to introduce such a measure? The First Minister and, I think, the Culture Minister in Cardiff, as well as, possibly, the Government here, have already said that they will not expend a single moment of Government time on introducing a new Welsh language Act. If the Government will not do it, although they promised through Mr. Rhodri Morgan in 1992 to do so, why should the Assembly be prevented from doing so in 2007, without having to wait?
	I will not go much further into the reasons for a new Welsh language Act. As I said, there is a great deal of confusion and some mystery as to the probable fate of the Welsh Language Board. Interestingly, there is a coalition of thought across Wales, across a number of groups in Wales and across a number of political parties in Wales that we need to look again at the 1993 Act. We need to do so in the new circumstances that are being brought about by Mr. Rhodri Morgan.
	The 1993 Act was an answer of sorts in 1993, but we contend that it has run into the buffers and needs to be considered carefully. The Secretary of State, in other arguments, talks about the need for the National Assembly to bed in. He has said that we need some time for it to prove its worth. The 1993 Act has had ample time to do so. I do not want to discuss the merits or otherwise of that Act, and I pay tribute to Lord Roberts for his work on it, but the day has come to look at it again. Given its deficiencies and the pressures for reform, and given the Government's refusal to make time here, there is a strong case for the Assembly to have the power to pass a measure on this quintessentially Welsh issue.

David Mundell: Given the time pressures, I do not intend to reiterate what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said in relation to amendments Nos. 13 and 16, which we have supported. At the very least, those are important probing amendments, to which the Secretary of State should respond.
	We are less inclined to support amendment No. 124 and new clause 10. Our interpretation is that proposed new subsection (2) makes it clear that the referendum would have no effect on the commencement of full law-making powers in respect of the Welsh language, and that if a future referendum were lost, that would likewise have no impact on full law-making powers in this area. Amendment No. 124 therefore makes it clear that, effectively, none of the commencement provisions in clause 104 apply to the assumption of full law-making powers in respect of the Welsh language, which would come into effect on 1 April 2007 should new clause 10 be passed.
	We would prefer all the subjects set out in schedule 7, including the Welsh language, to be subject to a referendum. We see no case for stripping out the Welsh language from that list of subjects.

Peter Hain: We all support, on a cross-party basis, the increasing progress made in relation to the Welsh language in recent years. However, as the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has just explained, amendment No. 124 and new clause 10, which would give the Assembly primary legislative powers in relation to the Welsh language, are both unnecessary and undesirable.
	If the Assembly identifies a need for legislative competence on matters relating to the Welsh language, or if the Welsh Assembly Government identify such a need, the Order in Council procedure under part 3 of the Bill would enable such competence to be sought. It would not make sense to grant the Assembly primary powers in relation to the Welsh language alone, but then to have a referendum on whether it should have primary powers at all in relation to all the other subjects listed in schedule 7. That was the point argued by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. The electorate rightly would feel that they had been bypassed on an important subject. A referendum vote must be on the whole package, not one that has already been broken into.
	The amendment would also have the complication that, in relation to this one area of legislative competence, the Assembly would have to have procedures in placefor example, under its Standing Ordersfor the passing of both Acts and Measures at the same time. On amendment No. 13, what is the point of deleting a reference to the Assembly treating English and Welsh equally
	so far as is . . . appropriate in the circumstances?
	Is the suggestion that the Assembly should act inappropriately, if necessary, to comply with that obligation? Whatever the intention behind amendment No. 16, its actual effect is unclear. The amendment as worded would seem to add little if anything to the existing wording of clause 61 and the powers that Welsh Ministers have under the Welsh Language Act 1993, because they have already been transferred to the Assembly.
	Certain functions under the Welsh Language Act 1993 have not been transferred to the Assembly and therefore are not currently exercised by the Welsh Assembly Government. The most important of those concerns the use of Welsh in legal proceedings. As England and Wales are a single legal jurisdiction, however, it is entirely appropriate that this issue should rest with the Lord Chancellor. The Bill is already clear in giving Welsh Ministers the power to do anything that they consider appropriate to support the Welsh language, and in enabling the Assembly to acquire legislative competence in relation to the Welsh language beyond that which it has at present. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I take many of his points. He will accept that there is still dissatisfaction among Opposition Members, and a great deal of worry, about the consequences of the steps that the First Minister proposes to take in respect of the Welsh Language Board. We might want to revisit the issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 104 to 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7
	  
	Acts of the Assembly

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 33, page 115, leave out line 17.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 149, page 116, leave out line 6.
	No. 34, page 116, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'monopolies' in line 20.
	No. 36, page 116, leave out lines 44 to 47.
	No. 37, page 117, leave out lines 1 to 7.
	No. 44, page 117, line 15, at end insert
	'Energy
	5A  Energy.'.
	No. 38, page 119, leave out line 2.
	No. 39, page 119, leave out lines 38 and 39.
	No. 40, page 119, leave out line 42.
	No. 43, page 120, line 17, at end insert
	'Police, probation and prison service
	13A  Police. Probation. Prison service.'.
	No. 275, in clause 120, page 65, line 6, after 'State', insert 'or any other person'.

Hywel Williams: Amendment No. 33 refers to hunting with dogs, which has been the subject of much controversy in this place. I had the dubious pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Hunting Bill for many weeks. We discussed the issue very fully, and one of my amendments proposed that the Assembly should have responsibility for hunting in Wales. I shall briefly rehearse the arguments that I presented.
	Agriculture is a devolved matter, and I think it fair to say that the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly have established amicable relationships with the farming unions in Wales. Farming in Wales has profited greatly from the existence of the Assembly. Agriculture in Wales differs from agriculture in England in that we have a great deal of upland farming, and fox predation is a considerable problem. Hunting, too, is different: there are many farmers' hunts and, I understand, miners' hunts in the south. Farmers' hunts are essentially a co-operative activity. The co-operation is similar to that between farmers at harvest time.
	A number of practical issues have come to my attention since the passing of the Bill that became the Hunting Act 2004. I think that that is a good argument for a change so that the Welsh Assembly can take a view. One of the issues is the effect of fox predation. We have a number of forests in Wales, run by the Forestry Commission and others. The commission lets contracts for hunting, because it recognises the difficulties caused by fox predation to upland farmers in particular. The hunts are finding it extremely difficult to control fox numbers in upland areas where there is forestry. There is a strong feeling in the country that the issue needs to be revisited. I think it appropriate for the Assembly to deal with it, at least in respect of upland farming, and to take the heat out of the problem.
	Amendment No. 38, another amendment tabled by members of my party, refers to railway heritage. There are many small lines in Walesgreat little lines. There are three in my constituency. I have no idea why the Assembly should not have some say in the development of the lines. That would accord with its control over tourism. I favour an integrated approach.

Lembit �pik: Amendment No. 33 makes sense to us on purely devolutionary grounds. I accept that there were different views on whether hunting with dogs should be curtailed, butleaving aside the position that each of us took at the timesurely anyone who feels that Wales should have parity with Scotland in terms of powers will recognise that the matter was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it seems reasonable that this issue, too, should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon eloquently described farmers' specific concerns about the Hunting Act. Notwithstanding his arguments on that point, even if one supported a ban on hunting with dogs, one should recognise the principle of allowing Wales to make the decision for itself.

Roger Williams: I, too, wish to speak about hunting with dogs. The points have been well made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), but hunting in Wales is not just about fox hunting as we know it; hunting with dogs involves flushing out foxes to guns, and it has been conclusively demonstrated that the element of the law that limits the number of dogs that may be used in that pursuit to two is quite inadequate and does not achieve the intended object. Given that different ways and means can be used to achieve things in Wales, it is appropriate that the matter be devolved.
	The amount of land in Wales owned by the Ministry of Defence has been brought to my attention. The MOD has responsibility for pest control in those areas. How will it carry out that duty if the letter of the law as currently expressed is adhered to?
	Finally, there is the question of energy. As we go towards the energy review and the possibility that nuclear power will be part of the recipe for providing energy for the United Kingdom, I believe that the question of whether nuclear plants are allowed in Wales should be within the Assembly's planning powers. For those reasons, I support the amendments.

David Davies: I have some sympathy with the amendment. I have made it fairly clear that I do not in general favour more powers for the Welsh Assembly, but there is the occasional circumstance in which there might be some logic to them. An active agriculture Department is already up and running in the Welsh Assembly, which is responsible for payments to farmers. The payments may at some point be affected by whether farmers allow hunts to take place on their land, particularly if the hunts are found to be doing anything illegal, which I am sure will not happen in Wales and which certainly does not happen in Monmouthshire among the hunts with which I am closely connected. On this occasion, there is a good reason for considering whether a power might be best devolved to Wales and dealt with by the agriculture Department there and by the many Assembly Members who have first-hand experience of agriculture.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 43. We had a debate on similar matters last week, and I do not propose to speak for longI see the Secretary of State grinning at that. I merely restate that it is high time to consider devolving the probation service, the police service and the prison service. It does not make a great deal of sense to have them stand out as reserved matters, but since I made a longer speech last week, suffice it to say that I once more put down a marker on that subject.

Dominic Grieve: I have some sympathy with the amendment on hunting with dogs. The difficulty, which we must face up to and which comes even more to the fore on the amendments to do with prisons, probation and the police, is that if we are to have a unified legal system, as England and Wales do, then while it is possible to have diversity within regulatory frameworks, to start to move towards dealing with fundamental issues of law and to have a divergence would mean that the principles of a unified legal system became increasingly difficult to operate. Of course, that applies more strongly to the police than to issues such as hunting with dogs. It could be argued that hunting with dogs falls within the regulatory framework, not that of fundamental legal principles. It is a difficult area, but as long as the people of Wales wish to see the maintenance of the union between Wales and England, with a measure of devolution and the retention of the principle of a unified legal systemwhich is one of the underpinnings of that unionwe should be wary before we split the responsibilities for certain legal areas between London and Cardiff.

Adam Price: I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate, but I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
	The amendments seek to expand the competency ofthe National Assembly in various areas. On broadcasting, there is an anomaly in the devolution settlement: cultural policy is devolved and will continue to be so, but broadcasting remains entirely a reserved matter. That is not acceptable, because broadcasting is arguably one of the most important and far-reaching cultural media we have.

David Davies: I understand the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's argument, but given the way in which the Welsh Assembly has behaved with the Arts Council for Wales and the creeping politicisation of the arts, does he really think that it would be a good idea to give even more potential influence to the Welsh Assembly over areas such as broadcasting?

Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made in the context of recent eventsit would be inappropriate to go into detail at the moment. The issue of the arm's length principle in cultural policy is a broader question. I have some sympathy for the continental European model of Ministries of Culture, but in that instance it is for the Ministers involved to use those powers responsibly. That may not have happened in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
	In the European Union, local television and radio are not reserved under the Spanish constitutional settlement and that has allowed the Basque region some flexibility in developing a Basque medium television service in the different regions of the Basque country. Broadcasting will need to remain a competency at the UK level, but these proposals do not even allow for the possibility of shared competency. Given the likelihood of further developments, such as television through the internet, the clear dividing line in legislative competence in this Bill will not be conducive to such developments.
	Competition policy is a wholly reserved matter under this Bill, as it is under the Scotland Act 1998, but there are areas of confusion where competition policy has an impact on devolved matters. One example is the confusion over changes in pharmacy regulation that the Office of Fair Trading wanted to introduce some years ago to give supermarkets the power to increase their market share and to deregulate the sector. There was confusion about where legislative competence lay, as obviously there was an impact on health, which was devolved in Wales and Scotland, yet it was also a competition matter. Allowing some degree of shared competence in competition policy would clarify where legislative competence lies.
	The proposals for the postal service are probably the most bold and radical in the group of amendments. As the Liberal Democrats have raised the spectre of Post Office privatisation, perhaps we should devolve responsibility for postal services or give the National Assembly the ability to get involved in their regulation. There is no guarantee about the future operation of postal services and we are all well aware of what has happened under the recent closure programme for urban and rural post offices.
	Finally, I return to the St. David's day public holidayan issue that I have raised with Secretary of State on several occasions. It is part of the wish list that the Welsh Assembly Government have sent as part of their legislative demands. Unfortunately, the Government at Westminster have not seen fit to accede to those demands. It should not be a matter of wish lists; it should be the right of the elected representatives of the people of Wales through their Government to decide whether we, like most other EU nations, should have an annual public holiday on our national day.
	There may be a case for a public holiday on St. George's day, although this is not the time for that debate, but we in England and Wales have only eight public holidays by right, which is the lowest number in any EU country apart from the Netherlands. Of course, workers in the Netherlands are entitled to more annual leave, so there is a compensatory allowance. As the Secretary of State will know, there are 10 annual public holidays in Northern Ireland. We are asking only for one extra day, not two.
	Bank holidays are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament and discussions about creating a national day are ongoing there. I understand that there has been reference to the possibility of creating a new annual British national dayfor example, on Trafalgar dayso, surely, under the Bill the National Assembly for Wales and the Labour Government in the National Assembly should be given the right, for which they have asked, to have the same devolved competence as the Scottish Parliament so that, like most EU countries, we can have a public holiday on our national day.

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the discipline that Members have shown in general in this debate.
	I respect the position of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). He wants many matters to be transferred to the Welsh Assembly, but they are outside the terms of the devolution settlement. He cannot just toss off in the middle of a speech a series of powers for devolution, ranging from energy, the police, probation, the Prison Service, public holidays, hunting with dogs, broadcasting, the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, oil and gas and Sunday trading, to licensing the sale and supply of alcohol.

Chris Ruane: It sounds like something the Liberal Democrats would do.

Peter Hain: I shall not go there.
	All those matters may have points in their favour, but they must be considered properly on their merits and there are proper procedures under existing transfer of function orders and arrangements and there will be machinery, under the Bill, to take such matters forward if the whole of Parliament desires it.
	I shall resist the temptation to get into arguments about hunting with dogs or about public holidays, although in respect of the request for a public holiday on St. David's day there was never a bid from the Assembly for legislation and there was never any consultation with business or anybody else who might have been affected by Wales having a different public holiday from England when cross-border trading and business arrangements are so highly integrated.
	The Bill does not alter, and is not intended to alter, the boundaries of the current devolution settlement. Any proposals to adjust the boundaries should be left to the machinery for that purpose contained in the Bill. Indeed, the National Assembly for Wales has not asked us to adjust the settlement in the way Members propose.

Cheryl Gillan: Did the Secretary of State say that there has never been a request from the Welsh Assembly to look at making St. David's day a public holiday, or did I mishear him?

Peter Hain: As I hope Hansard will show, I was careful to say that the Assembly passed a motion to that effect, which was transmitted to me, quite properly, by the First Ministerin fact, I think it was transmitted to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)but the Assembly has never made a bid for a Bill to that effect. That is the point. The Assembly has never made a specific request for a piece of legislation to take its place in a hierarchy of bids over and above other bids.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State chose his words carefully, because I was led to believe that the matter was one of the points of issue in bringing in the Order in Council mechanism. It was one of the matters on which the Secretary of State had refused to grant legislation requested by the Assembly. I understood that from the First Minister himself; I hope I do not misinterpret him.

Peter Hain: There has been no specific request for legislation. The motion passed by the Assembly was transmitted to me by the First Minister and I said that I did not think it appropriate to take it forward. I was particularly concerned that there had been no proper consultation with the business community in Wales.
	For all those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State may say that there is a colourful miscellany of requests and a huge variety of aspirations, but that is a measure of the ideas among Plaid Cymru Members about how the devolution settlement could be developed, and will be developed in future.
	In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 108
	  
	Legislative Competence: Supplementary

Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 59, line 18, after 'Parliament', insert 'or
	(aa)   has been laid before each House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but has been rejected by the House of Lords,'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 160, in page 59, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A)   If subsection (4)(aa) applies, the Order in Council shall not take effect until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.

Adam Price: The amendments refer once again to the position of the House of Lords in relation to proposals in the Bill, so I do not want to detain the Committee unduly.
	There are proponents of bicameralism and of unicameralism, but what the Bill seems to propose throughout is tricameralism. There are sets of proposals whereby measures such as demands for a referendum or any changes in the competency of the post-legislative powers of the National Assembly would still have to go through three hoops: the Assembly, the House of Commons and the Chamber down the Corridor. That is not acceptable to my party, nor probablyprivatelyto many democrats on the Labour Benches.
	As some Members of the Assembly have said, it is almost as though we are returning to the dark days of the Poynings law when the Irish Parliament had to send its proposals to Westminster for approval. On several occasions, Catholic Members of the Upper House who came to Westminster to support those proposals ended up in the tower. I am not suggesting that that would happen nowadays, either under the Labour Government or a future Government of another hue.
	I reiterate the point that we have made throughout proceedings on the Bill: it is unacceptable for the democratic wish of the national representative institution of the people of Wales to be frustrated by an unelected Chamber. Self-government is ours by right. We have a right to self-determination; it is not something that should be doled out through the largesse of an unelected institution. Therefore, we argue that the House of Lords has no proper rolecertainly not after an affirmative vote by the people of Wales to set up a properly constituted law-making Parliament. We therefore ask the Government to remove the House of Lords from that role.
	As Lord Livsey has said, such a role could fan the flames of Welsh nationalismso perhaps arguing against that could be contrary to our own interests if that interpretation is correct. If the House of Lords ever frustrates the democratic wishes of the Welsh people, it would certainly lead to a constitutional crisis, and I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want that to happen.

Peter Hain: We have covered this ground in some detail earlier in our proceedings, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on making a speech that he had not expected to make and on doing so very competently. As I have said before, we cannot in the middle of the Government of Wales Bill overturn the whole constitutional relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords and, in effect, pre-emptively apply the Parliament Acts to the House of Lords on Welsh legislation alone. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that. I heartily agree with him, although I am bound to point out that substantial parts of the Billparticularly part 3, which we considered previouslyimplement remarkable constitutional innovations and the Government do not seem to be troubled by that at all. On the basis of the Government's approach, I am a little startled, but rather reassured to hear the Secretary of State adopt such a constitutionalist position.

Adam Price: Yet again, I am disappointed, but hardly surprised and certainly not shocked by the Secretary of State's rejection of our restatement of the Welsh people's democratic right to self-determination. However, on the basis that we will not finish the unfinished business of the House of Lords reform this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110
	  
	Proceedings on Bills

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 192, page 60, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, page 60, line 29, leave out from 'Welsh' to end of line 31.

Dominic Grieve: We return to a subject that we touched on when we considered part 3. I am mindful of the fact that different criteria will apply to each part. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to explain to the House how he considers that the Standings Orders will operate to expedite proceedings on Bills and what checks, if any, will exist if the view is that the way in which the Assembly conducts its business is preventing full debate from taking place.
	Even if the Assembly gets its part 4 powers, it will still be a subordinate legislature. People are entitled to some reassurance that the Assembly will conduct its scrutiny in a manner that the House finds acceptable. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that there is at least a risk that Standing Orders could be introduced that short-circuit the full consideration of Bills. If that were to happen under part 4, what redress would individuals have if they wanted to challenge the decisions that the Assembly made within its sphere of competence? I should like the Minister to address his remarks to that issue in particular in dealing with amendment No. 192.
	Again, amendment No. 193 revisits the use of English and Welsh. That issue was raised in identical terms in part 3, and the only reason why I raise it again is to find out whether the Minister has anything to add to my suggestion on that occasion that the Bill confined the text used to English and Welsh, whereas the Minister mentioned the possibility that one might wish to write part of the text in Latinfor example, to identify medicinal products. The current wording prohibits that, however, and I do not think that that is what the Government intend.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise very briefly to support amendment No. 193, as I did last week in support of a similar amendment. There is no point dwelling on the subject: it is a proper amendment, and I hope that the Government will give due consideration to it.
	As for the use of Latin words, I am sure that we could accommodate Latin words in a Welsh text. There were timesfor example, in the laws of Hywel Ddawhen laws appeared in both Welsh and Latin, to the exclusion of English, of course.

Dominic Grieve: I can claim no expertise in Welsh, but my recollection is that Welsh includes a number of Latin words anyway.

Elfyn Llwyd: It probably doesthe Welsh were a very scholarly people and would have taken in a few useful words from Latin, as and when necessary. I shall not spin things outmy Latin is not that goodexcept to say that I fully support amendment No. 193, and I hope that the Government will give a full response to it in due course.

Nick Ainger: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale?
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right to say that we rehearsed these arguments last Tuesday. In fact, I wrote to him to clarify some of the points that he wanted clarifying. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that, in emergency circumstances, the Assembly can introduce Bills to address a problem. The   hon. Gentleman expresses concerns that perhaps the Standing Orders could be used to truncate the proper scrutiny of the legislation. I am sympathetic to the view that Assembly Acts must receive proper scrutiny, but clause 110(2) will not circumvent that. Instead, it recognises that there may be circumstances in which the Assembly's standard scrutiny procedures may not be appropriate, because the Bill under consideration requires urgent attention.
	The important thing is that the Assembly should be able, as the House is, to introduce legislation to address a particularly urgent problem. In my letter to the hon. Gentleman, I referred to the fact that the House had to pass a new Act to delay the local government elections in England because of practical problems that related to foot and mouth disease. That is a good example. I assure him that I am absolutely certain that the Standing Orders will ensure proper scrutiny, although it may well be truncated in order to pass emergency legislation, as happens in the House.
	On amendment No. 193, both the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) make interesting points, but I assure them that the wording will not prevent an Assembly Act from including words in languages other than English and Welsh if their use proves necessary.
	Bearing in mind that we had a good debate on the issue when we were considering part 3 and following my letter, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 111 and 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113
	  
	Power to Intervene in Certain Cases

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 45, page 61, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 148, page 61, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 46, page 61, line 43, leave out paragraph (c).

Elfyn Llwyd: We had a full if not lengthy debate on these issues last week. In my view, clause 113 gives the Secretary of State almost carte blanche to prevent Assembly Bills from going forward if he is so minded to do. In the debate last week, we considered in detail the provisions in subsection (1)(a), which are very broad. It says that a Bill could be stopped by the Secretary of State if it
	would have an adverse effect on any matter which is not listed under any of the headings in Part 1 of Schedule 7 (or falls within any of the exceptions specified in that Part of that Schedule).
	Paragraph (c) is also very broad and says that a Bill could be stopped if it
	would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies in England.
	I took even greater exception, however, to paragraph (b), which refers to water resources. In the debate last week, I took an intervention from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and we discussed the issue. I continue to be of the view that what I said about water resources is legally correct. I was hoping that I would be proved wrong by letter or by advice, but I am afraid that I am right and that, in future, if the National Assembly decided as a matter of policy that it would not sanction the creation of any further dams for water resource purposes, that Bill could be overridden by Parliament.

Nick Ainger: indicated dissent.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister shakes his head, but one of us is right. I am not saying that I must be right but if I am wrong, prove me wrong. He need not do that tonight; he can do so between now and Report. I will gladly accept an explanation and I will fully and humbly apologise if I am wrong. However, I think that I am right, so we need to get the matter clear. The clause could be far reaching and damaging. Members from throughout the Assembly have said that it does not treat them in an adult manner and used other quite flowery language. They, like us, are owed a full explanation so perhaps the Minister will take advice from parliamentary counsel. If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it.
	I will not delay the Committee any further, because we had a debate last week and even had a Division on the issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond in due course, if not necessarily today, in the manner that I have requested.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We debated this issue when we discussed very similar amendments to clause 100. We had a Division, and I remind him that the result was 317 to seven.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 is replicated in this clause. It is a direct replication; nothing new is added. In the six years since the Act was enacted, an issue relating to this subject has not arisen. Perhaps we have just been fortunate, but all the provision does is provide a fall-back position.
	Many cities in England are very dependent on water supplies from Wales and it is important to consider what the Bill says. The hon. Gentleman is understandably exercised by this issue and by clause 113(1)(b), which contains the words
	might have a serious impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England.
	If the Assembly introduced a Bill that would prevent further valleys from being flooded to supply water to England, we would have to consider whether it would seriously affect the water supplies and the quality of them in England. That is the point that I made last Tuesday, and I reiterate it.
	I will, however, seek further advice, because I recognise that the issue has caused some consternation. I will also double-check. The first check shows that when we debated schedule 3 to the Government of Wales Bill in 1998, there was no debate on this issue either in this place or in the other place. However, before report, I will be able to let the hon. Gentleman know what I subsequently discover. With that reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful for that reassurance and for the manner in which the Minister has responded. I am pleased to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115
	  
	Welsh Seal and Letters Patent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: This clause is about the Welsh Seal and the Letters Patent and I did not want it to pass by completely unnoticed. When I saw that it was in the Bill, I was absolutely fascinated and wanted to do a little research so that I could ask the Minister a couple of questions.
	The Great Seal of the Realm, the chief seal of the Crown, is used to show the monarch's approval of important state documents. In today's constitutional monarchy, the sovereign still acts on the advice of the Government of the day, but the seal remains an important symbol of the sovereign's role as Head of State and goes back, I believe, to the 11th century.
	The seal meant that the monarch did not have to sign every official document in person and authorisation could be carried out instead by an appointed officer. I can find reference to the separate seals that exist for Scotlandthe Great Seal of Scotlandand for Northern Ireland, but I found little if any reference to a Welsh seal. My first question for the Minister therefore is whether this is the first Welsh seal ever. If so, is it not right and proper to mark its arrival in the Bill and eventually in statute by holding a short debate?
	Her Royal Highness Her Majesty the Queen has had to have two seals in the time that she has been on the throne. The Great Seal of the Realmthe monarch's stamp of approvalhas worn out because it has been used approximately 5,000 times since 1953. In 2001, Her Majesty had to have a new seal commissioned.
	If this is the first Welsh seal, it is an historic moment. However, my second question is about how it will be used. The Great Seal matrix is obviously used to cover a wide range of documents requiring royal approval, including Letters Patent and royal proclamations, commissions and some writs. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Welsh seal will be used in relation to the writs for the election of Members to this place? The seal is also used for documents that give power to signand ratify treaties. At the moment, about 100 documents a year pass under the Great Seal. Will the Minister tell us how it is envisaged that the Welsh seal will be used and the documents for which it will be used?
	Interestingly enough, when the sealing occurs in the other place in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the seals are colour coded. Dark green seals are affixed to letters patent that elevate individuals to the peerage. Blue seals are used for documents relating to close members of the royal family and the scarlet-red seal is used for the appointment of bishops and most other patents. As part of a run around the field of the history of our great countries and in viewhopefullyof a big mark in the history of Wales, will the Minister tell us how he envisages the Welsh seal and how it will be used?

Nick Ainger: That was an interesting little speech. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), or perhaps her researcher

Cheryl Gillan: No, it was me.

Nick Ainger: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work. I do not think that I will be able to answer all her questions, but I will certainly write to her if there are any omissions.

Cheryl Gillan: I will be grateful if the Minister will write to me, but it would be nice to have his comments on record in Hansard. Will he thus answer me by way of written statement?

Nick Ainger: I will certainly consider that.
	The hon. Lady asks whether the seal will be the first Welsh seal. We think that it will be, but I will check and let her and the rest of the Committee know. Let me set out the position. As the Bill stands, the Welsh seal will be relevant only if we enact part 4 following a successful referendum to give the Assembly the power to enact Acts. The seal is relevant in the context of Royal Assent because clause 114(4) provides that Royal Assent is given only when letters patent under the Welsh seal are signed with Her Majesty's own hand to signify her assent to a Bill.
	I do not know the answers to the hon. Lady's questions about treaties and Members of Parliament, but I will write to her.

Dominic Grieve: I think that the Minister is likely to find that there were previous Welsh seals. Llewellyn the Great undoubtedly had a seal to evidence his Acts.

Nick Ainger: My research will reveal what the situation is.

Hywel Williams: May I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Owain Glyndwr had a seal, which was appended to the Pennal letterLlythyr Pennalthat was sent to the King of France?

Adam Price: A French letter.

Nick Ainger: We will not go down that route.

David Davies: I must remind the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that Owain Glyndwr, of whom I am a distant descendant, did not control the whole of Wales and was quite unpopular in large parts of Monmouthshire, which he ravaged. In fact, Newport was so badly damaged that there was a great debate about whether it should even be rebuilt after Owain Glyndwr had finished his depredations.

Nick Ainger: I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman because we need to make progress.
	I shall write to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. She raised interesting points and I am sure that all hon. Members will be enlightened when they read the responses.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1
	  
	The Assembly

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert
	'(1A)   The Senedd is to consist of eighty members elected through the single transferable vote from multi-member constituencies.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 8 and 9.
	Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
	'(3A)   The system of election shall be a single transferable vote system under which
	(a)   a vote is capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates, and
	(b)   a vote is capable of being transferred to the next choice
	(i)   when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
	(ii)   when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, leave out line 2.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'four' and insert 'sixteen'.
	Amendment No. 71, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, leave out 'two votes' and insert
	'one vote which will be cast preferentially'.
	Amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (6).
	Amendment No. 73, in clause 12, page 8, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 7, in clause 13, page 8, line 26, at end insert
	'and
	(d)   the number of Assembly constituencies.'.
	New clause 7Senedd constituencies
	'(1)   The Senedd constituencies shall each be formed from more than one parliamentary constituency in Wales.
	(2)   Each Senedd constituency shall be comprised of no more than one-tenth and no less than one twenty-fifth of the eligible electorate of Wales.
	(3)   The Boundary Commission for Wales shall periodically recommend Senedd constituencies.'.
	New clause 8Elections and franchise
	'(1)   This section applies to elections of members of the Assembly, including by-elections.
	(2)   Each vote in the poll at an election shall be a single transferable vote.
	(3)   A single transferable vote is a vote
	(a)   capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and
	(b)   capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give prior choice the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.
	New clause 12Elections and franchise
	'(1)   This section applies to elections of members of the Assembly, including by-elections.
	(2)   Each vote in the poll at an election shall be a single transferable vote.
	(3)   For the purposes of subsection (2), a single transferable vote is a vote
	(a)   capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and
	(b)   capable of being transferred to the next choice when
	(i)   the vote is not needed to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or
	(ii)   when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.

Jennifer Willott: There are two points behind our amendments in the group, both of which are crucial to the future capacity and legitimacy of the Welsh Assembly. The first refers to the fundamental point of how big we want the Assembly to be. The Government seem deeply opposed to increasing the size of the institution. Our primary concern is the quality of the scrutiny to which legislation in the Assembly will be subjected. One does not have to be Carol Vorderman to work out the maths. If a party with 30 Members forms the Government of a 60-Member Assembly, and thus appoints 12 Ministers and deputy Ministers along with a presiding officer, it is left with 17 Members to make up a majority on all the Committees. If one accepts that no Committee can be properly run with fewer than eight Members, one is left with a maximum of four Committees. However one does the sums, one is left with an unsatisfactory answer.

David Davies: Does the hon. Lady also agree that one does not have to be Carol Vorderman to work out that if the Assembly sits only two afternoons a week, there is plenty more time in which it could sit and absolutely no reason why we should pay for an extra 20 politicians?

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am referring to Committees rather than the sittings of the Assembly as a wholethe two are very different.
	Numerous voices, including the Richard commission, have warned the Government that if extra powers are given to the Assembly, it will need to expand. The vision laid out by the Richard commission two years ago was an 80-Member Assembly with primary powers. The Welsh Liberal Democrats endorse that vision, but it is being short-changed by the Bill.
	A further aspect of the Richard model was the votingsystem. The Government's proposals on the Assembly's electoral system have rightly attracted much controversy, as we have heard today, because they have abjectly failed to come up with any evidence to support their move to ban dual candidacy. However, we must see the dual candidacy debate for what it is: a major row about a minor point. By focusing so intently on it, we are guilty of missing the wider wrong.
	There is wide consensus on both sides of the House that problems due to low voter turnout and the public's engagement with mainstream politics exist throughout the country. Much of that is dismissively attributed to voter apathy, but my experience shows that the public are not apathetic at all. Although I do not wish to rehash arguments that have already been heard today, many people are fundamentally disillusioned with a voting system that does not represent their will. Banning dual candidacy will do nothing to improve that situation, but introducing single transferable voting would. Even as a Lib Dem, I cannot believe that the first amendment that I am moving in the Chamber is on STV, but I am sure that my colleagues are very proud of me.
	STV is an inclusive and fair system. By failing to adopt it, the Government are missing a huge opportunity to put Wales in the vanguard of electoral reform. The Secretary of State would give the public a system that ensured that they got what they voted for if he was truly worried about the disincentives that he says that voters face and the
	integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public.[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 264.]
	That system is STV.

Paul Murphy: I had not intended to speak to the group of amendments, but given the views of the Liberal Democrats on amendment No. 110, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I am rather puzzled by their position on the group. Amendment No. 110 was quite modest in comparison because it referred to consultation with the people of Wales on whether the electoral system should be changed. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) more or less dismissed the amendment by going on about the number of people who voted for the Government at the general election. However, I now assume that the Liberal Democrats and those who support the amendments in the group believe that the present system of top-ups is flawed and discredited. It is fair enough if that is their view, but it seems to contradict what was set out to the Committee half an hour ago. I find that difficult to understand.
	We could spend hours and hours debating whether single transferable voting is a good or bad system. The question is: has there been sufficient consultation of the people of Wales about whether this is the appropriate system to replace the system with which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) now says she does not agree?
	In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) implied that we were not allowed to change our mindsbut the whole purpose of the Bill is to change the system on the basis of the experience of the past seven or eight years. Hers is a flawed and preposterous argument, and if it is used further in this debate, it should be knocked down with the ferocity that it deserves.
	The amendment would not allow anyone in Wales to be properly consulted about whether we should have the single transferable vote. I am not arguing about the STV system itself, but about whether there should be a proper consultation on it. It has been argued that Lord Richard's committee was one, but that was not about the electoral system alone; it was about a whole host of systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and I argued that there should be a specific consultation among the Welsh people about the way in which we elect our Assembly.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain his transformation on the road to Damascus on the subject of consultation. His party's Government have displayed an utter and abject failure to consult on some profoundly important issues, stretching fromas one can predictnuclear power, to reforms in the police service. Why does the right hon. Gentleman choose to defend this one constitutional issue as an appropriate one for wide consultation, when this Government repeatedly force their will on the Welsh people on a minority of the vote?

Paul Murphy: Because we are now debating the Government of Wales Bill; that is why we are considering this particular subject. The hon. Gentleman has been involved in Welsh politics for some years, so he will understand that these issues need to be resolved in the light of experience.
	The Richard report was one way of looking at the matter, and should be taken as part of the consultation process. Others argue that an electoral commission could give us some idea of where we should go. I say that ultimately, the people of Wales should be consulted in a referendumon the major change in the electoral system, not on dual candidacy. A change from the present system, which I agree is partly flawed, to a completely new STV system strikes me as a proper candidate for a referendum, whenor rather, ifwe eventually reach the stage of changing the law-making powers of the Assembly.
	To change the method of voting completely would be such a fundamental change in the way in which the Assembly works that it deserves a referendum at some later date. Before that, however, there should be a proper consultation of the people. The Liberal Democrat amendment would change the voting system fundamentally without asking the people of Wales.

Several hon. Members: rose

Hywel Williams: First, I am reluctant to intrude

Michael Lord: Order. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Is the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) going to continue his speech?

Paul Murphy: indicated assent.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Sir Michael. We misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and thought he had finished, so I apologise to him.
	It seems strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman insists on a referendum in Wales and a consultation on STV for the Assembly, yet his Government introduced the same sort of proportional system for the election of Members of the European Parliament without any such consultation.

Paul Murphy: I did not like that eitherbut that is another issue. I respect the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams); he is a good Member for his constituency, and is rooted in Welsh politics, so he will understand that this is such a fundamental change that people should be given the opportunity to debate it properly. As I said earlier, the Richard commission touched on the matter, referred to it and made recommendations, but as part of a wider range. This issue is so fundamentally different that we ought to have proper consultation on it. Then, perhaps if we have a referendum on law-making powers, it should be combined with a referendum on how we change the electoral system.
	There was one thing that I found interesting in the speech by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amershamand presumably it will be echoed in later speeches. Labour Members were derided when we said that we had some doubts about the present top-up system. The system now suggested would completely replace that, and I assume that the Liberal Democrats and others who support the amendment do so, as a matter of policy, because the system that it would introduce is better than the top-up system from their point of viewnot from the point of view of electoral advantage, but because they believe that it is right. However, the amendment is wrong, because it does not give the people of Wales the opportunity to be consulted and to vote on such a fundamental change.

Hywel Williams: I hesitate to intervene in this private spat between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but we too have tabled amendments supporting an STV system with five regions and 16 Members for each region. The virtues of the STV system are obvious to us, and I hope to other hon. Members too, so I need not rehearse them; they have certainly been debated here many times.

Oliver Heald: Can the hon. Gentleman point to one single benefit of STV, given that it is so damaging to any constituency link between Member and voter?

Hywel Williams: The system proposed in our amendment would retain a regional element, in that there would be 16 Members for each of the European regions. I accept that that is a large number, but STV has been successfully operated in other countries. We only have to look across the water to Ireland to see that.
	I finish simply by saying that in future, I hope to see consistent support on the Labour Benches for consulting the people of Wales on all sorts of other matters. I would like to see that happen.

David Mundell: The last time I stood up to oppose the introduction of a system of single transferable votes, it was for local government elections in Scotland. Sadly, the Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament voted that system through, despite the fact that it had no clear mandate or support from the people of Scotland.
	I confess to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that I have not been to Splott market, but I have been to other markets and similar places, and I have never heard anybody there talking about the merits of the single transferable vote. It was recommended by the Jenkins commission, which the Prime Minister set upa very long time ago now, it seemsand it is a particularly opaque system of representation and election. It takes two days to count the votes in such an election, and the two days that I spent witnessing such a count in Northern Ireland did not endear the system to me.
	I do not think that the people of Scotland, who now face local government elections under such a system in 15 months' time, are yet ready to determine how they should allocate their seventh, 11th or 15th preference, or how that process can ultimately elect the person who they want to represent them. As has already been said in interventions, that system also breaks the important link between constituent and elected Member.
	At least this debate is honest, as was the debate on amendment No. 103, because we need a debate about electoral systems, and about which system can command the support of the people of Wales, rather than having a false debate on changes that, as we shall see when we discuss the amendments to clause 7, would simply be gerrymandering the existing system.
	Yes, one can argue against the additional Member system. One can also argue against first past the post, and for and against the single transferable vote. We do not support the amendments on the single transferable vote, but those are legitimate debates. We cannot justify the introduction of measures that would create an election system that exists hardly anywhere else in the world. Accepting the criticisms that the right hon. Member for Torfaen made of the Electoral Commission and academics, we cannot justify the introduction of an electoral system that falls outwith international democratic norms. There is an important debate to be held on amendments to clause 7, and I do not wish to delay the House any further, other than to reaffirm the fact that we do not support the amendments in this group.

Peter Hain: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) on the way in which she moved her very first amendment in the House? I wonder whether she may change her mind, however, and decide to back our proposal when she replies, given that she backed the last Liberal leader one day and called for his removal the next.

Jennifer Willott: I would like to put on the record the fact that the incident to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was reported in the newspaper as a mistake on its part.

Peter Hain: In that case, I grovellingly withdraw my outrageous accusation.
	I very much agree with the excellent contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on the principle of the change advocated in the amendments to a single transferable vote system, which would fundamentally break the link between elected Members and constituencies of a manageable size. Equally powerful was his point that there has been absolutely no consultation on the change, which would simply parachute an entirely new system on to the people of Wales without any debate or serious consultation.
	Amendment No. 67, which was moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, would provide for 80 Assembly Members for Wales, rather than 60 as at present. The main argument for the increase is the extra work load that will accompany the Assembly's additional powers. However, as the hon. Lady and the House know, the Assembly meets in plenary session only two days a week. Indeed, it meets only on two afternoons a week, between 2 pm and 5.30 pm on Tuesday and Wednesdays, and for rather fewer weeks in the calendar year than the House. Indeed, the Presiding Officer, Lord Elis-Thomas, has suggested that the Assembly's timetable could easily be based on a much longer working year, rather than the 33 weeks that appear to be current practice. He suggested that the Assembly sit on Monday afternoons and Thursday mornings as well as Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Indeed, he was admirably frank in an interview published on Boxing day in the Daily Post:
	I agree with the Secretary of State, we all have to work harder here. There should be three to four days of proper scrutiny . . . we should sit for at least 40 weeks a year . . . we finished for Christmas at least a fortnight before Parliament.
	He is therefore making a powerful case for dealing with the problem of the extra work load and the scrutiny responsibilities that will fall on the Assembly after May 2007. That work load will be even greater after primary powers are implemented, if a successful referendum is called in the next decade or thereafter. I agree with Lord Elis-Thomas. The existing 60 Members are perfectly well-placed to perform their functions both effectively and well in the interests of Wales, so there is no need for further elected politicians.

Hywel Williams: Is the Secretary of State confident that there will be sufficient Members to staff the Committees, given that many Government Members will be tied up in duties as Ministers or Deputy Ministers?

Peter Hain: The Bill provides for a dozen Ministersa combination of full Ministers and Deputy Ministerswhich leaves, according to my arithmetic, 48 Members to staff Committees. If the Assembly sat from Monday afternoon until Tuesday afternoon, it would be perfectly possible for them to perform such a role.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman may recall the Cardiff conference at which these matters were discussed. I put a question to him from the floor, and asked whether there would be a trigger in the Bill to increase membership if and when it was necessary. He said that there would be, but clearly there is not one now. However, what if he is wrong, and the Assembly cannot cater for additional scrutiny and legislation as it lacks the capacity to undertake such work? Would we have to return to the House and find parliamentary time to increase the membership?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is rightthat would be the case. For the reasons that I explained at the conference, I looked at the option of including a provision in the Bill to increase the number of Assembly Members, perhaps by increasing the number of list Members, as it is difficult to do so in any other way under the existing additional Member system. However, that would alter the balance between list and constituency Members, with constitutional and political consequences, so I did not think that it was right to proceed with such a provision. Primary legislation would therefore be needed. If that were the case, we would need comprehensively to rethink the electoral system in a way that is neither possible nor desirable in the Bill. That leads us back to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and other Labour Back Benchers.

David Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said that a radical rethink of the electoral system would be required if the number of Members increased from 60 to 80, but does he not accept that Labour would almost certainly lose its built-in majority because, if the additional Assembly Members were elected under the current system, the overwhelming majority would not be Labour party members?

Peter Hain: That is not certain at all. In fact, if there was an expansion of the list system it is quite possible that many more Labour Members would be elected, as we do not have any list Members at present. In the 1999 elections, one was returned from Mid and West Wales, but that was the exception. The political effect is not obvious, but there would be one.

Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: No, I should like to make progress in dealing with matters raised by hon. Members who have been present throughout our proceedings.
	Amendment No. 67 and related amendments propose that the Assembly's electoral system should be changed, and that the single transferable vote system should be introduced. The Plaid Cymru amendment proposes that the 80 Assembly Members should be elected from the five regional constituencies which were formerly used for the election of MEPs and which would be created from the existing electoral regions. Each constituency would return 16 Members. That is a fundamental change, and it would mean that Assembly Members would serve gigantic constituencies, both geographically and in terms of the number of electors. It would damage severely the important link between constituency Assembly Members and the people they serve. The Mid and West Wales constituency, for example, would stretch from Harlech to Welshpool and from Fishguard to Crickhowell, and would thus be an enormous area to try to represent. The North Wales constituency would extend from Holyhead to Wrexham, and South Wales West from Gower to Bridgend, and so on. Two of the constituencies would have almost 0.5 million electors, and even the smallest would have nearly 400,000.

Elfyn Llwyd: Under the status quo, the North Wales is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman describes. At the first Assembly election, Simon Thomas, who represented Ceredigion in the House, served as a list Member for an area extending from Eglwysbach in the Conwy valley in the north of my constituency, five minutes from Llandudno, all the way down to Fishguard. Things were far worse than they would be under our proposal.

Peter Hain: That takes us to list Members as opposed to constituency Members, who represent constituencies of a manageable size. If the people who elect constituency Members do not like them, they can get rid of them. The problem with the STV system is that it is difficult to get rid of a particular Member whom the electorate think is underperforming or with whom they disagree politically. The STV system breaks the fundamental principle at the heart of our parliamentary systemthe link between the elected Member and their constituencywhich still forms the base for our devolved legislatures.
	If we compare our experience in the United Kingdom with that across the rest of the European Union, it is interesting to consider the close links between Members and constituencies in the UK. Those links increase democratic accountability between hon. Members and Members of the devolved legislatures and their electorates, which is a point that does not apply in vast multi-Member constituencies and still less in list systems.

Lembit �pik: Is the Secretary of State speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of the Government in opposing the system that was used to elect our Members of the European Parliament?

Peter Hain: Changing how we elect our Members of the European Parliament has not been a happy experience. From my vantage point in Welsh Labour, although I guess that this is generally true, I have noticed that individual Members of the European Parliament used to have a relationship with their constituency. They were able to attend civic functions and party meetings, which led to the constant injection of European issues into the wider political culture. Since that relationship was broken, accountability has not been the same. In retrospect, whatever the advantages of that changeit was introduced to try to obtain fairer representationit served to break the link between MEPs and local electors.

Lembit �pik: The point is important in terms of understanding the Government's position: is the Secretary of State saying that the Government regret changing to large constituencies?

Peter Hain: I have not said that. In WalesI am not aware of a difference elsewhere in the United Kingdomthe relatively organic relationship between individual MEPs and the electorate has been broken, and I have noticed a decline in interest in European issues and in the quality of debate.
	The practical consequences of the amendment would seriously affect voters. The ballot paper would contain 16 candidates and four parties for each regional constituency, and it would be even bigger with 80 Membersif it were to include party logos, I do not know how big it would be.
	The alternative propositionthe creation of multi-Member constituencies containing between 90,000 and 220,000 electorsreminds me of Liberal Democrat proposals on STV in the 1980s. Those proposals would have created lots of constituencies in urban areas, making it easier for Liberal Democrats to get elected in Labour-controlled areas, but a smaller number of constituencies in rural areas, where it would have been more difficult for Labour Members to get elected. In our democratic system, constituencies are of a relatively manageable size, and if the electorate do not like an individual Member, they boot them out, which is an important feature to retain.
	Amendment No. 7 would confer on the Secretary of State the power by order to change the number of Assembly constituencies. It would not be sensible to give the Secretary of State such an unfettered power, which would have serious democratic consequences.
	For those reasons, the Government are not willing to accept the amendment. We propose to retain the existing electoral system, which we will improve. After improvement, the system will still have imperfections, but it will have far fewer imperfections than the fundamentally flawed STV system.

Jennifer Willott: I am not satisfied by the Secretary of State's response. For the Liberal Democrats, this is a matter of principle. We think it important that people get what they vote for, which is why I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 46, Noes 428.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	  
	Power to Vary date of Ordinary General Election

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 196, page 2, line 35, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 197, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.

Cheryl Gillan: The amendments need not take up the Committee's time. I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that they are probing amendments, which cover the powers in the clause to vary the date of the ordinary general election. With the hindsight afforded by the foot and mouth epidemic and perhaps the prospect of an avian flu epidemic, I wanted to ensure that we had built in sufficient flexibility in terms of altering the date and that we were not creating another Procrustean bed on which to tie ourselves in knots. Boxing ourselves into a corner on timing is inappropriate, not least because I would envisage some changes in a state of emergency or circumstances in which the movement of people was undesirable.
	I should be grateful if the Secretary of State responded in the spirit of the way in which I tabled the amendments, gave us further and better particulars of what would happen if some unforeseen outbreak occurred and explained whether we had the desired flexibility.

Peter Hain: I greatly appreciate the way in which the hon. Lady moved the amendment. She made some important points.
	Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to change the date of an ordinary general election. However, it must be considered as a reserve power that would come into play only when it was necessary to deal with short-term emergencies, such as foot and mouth disease.
	I am concerned that extending the variants to three months either side of the first Thursday in May would give too great a margin of discretion. It could arouse suspicion that a Secretary of State was seeking to move an election date in a way that was politically advantageous to the Government.
	The current provision is carried forward from the Government of Wales Act 1998, so the Bill simply re-enacts it. It would cover, for example, circumstances in which the nation was thrown into mourning close to the election date. A more prolonged crisis, which raised the question of whether the election should be postponed, would, and should, be a case for emergency legislation. I do not believe that a power for the Secretary of State to vary an election date by three months should sit on the statute book, because people could claim that it would be used for nefarious purposes, perhaps by a Secretary of State, who, unlike me, was unscrupulous.
	I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State has considered his response to the amendments, which I shall withdraw. However, perhaps he would undertake to examine the drafting of the clause and ascertain whether anything could be built into it later to cover an emergency so that we did not have to rely on emergency legislation. Circumstances could arise that were purely local to Wales and it would be a shame if the Bill did not include the possibility of extending the time from a month to six weeks in exceptional circumstances.

Peter Hain: I shall examine the matter afresh because the hon. Lady has a point. Since we are re-enacting a provision from the 1998 Act, we believed that the current provision was the right way in which to proceed, but I shall have another look at the matter.

Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful but I hope that the Secretary of State understands that, simply because we are re-enacting a provision, there is no need for me to rubber-stamp it without asking what I believe to be sensible and reasonable questions on behalf of the people of Wales. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will re-examine the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 2, line 40, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-one'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 34, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-one'.

Hywel Williams: The amendments are probing and they follow representations from Members of the National Assembly. They suggest that the Assembly should meet after 21 rather than seven days purely as a matter of convenience, given the possibility of discussions, for whatever reason, between the time of the election and the meeting of the Assembly. I simply seek the Government's opinion on the relative merits of allowing seven or 21 days for the potential discussions.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would allow three weeks before the Assembly first had to meet either after an ordinary election when the date had been moved by up to a month or after an extraordinary general election. That might be convenient for political parties to consider the implications of the election results, but the public would fail to understand why, if they elected an Assembly, it did not get to work immediately.
	Until a new First Minister is elected, the person who was in that post before the election will continue to hold office. The Assembly will have 28 days from the date of the poll in which to nominate a new First Minister and I fail to understand why it would benefit even Assembly Members and political parties for the Assembly not to have to meet for the first three weeks of that period.
	The Assembly has to elect a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer at its first meeting. The public might take a poor view of an Assembly that did not manage to achieve what Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly itself have achieved after each general election.
	The offices of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer should stand above politics. It should not take potential candidates long to decide whether to stand and it should not take Assembly Members long to decide, according to Standing Orders and the choice before them, how to vote. I believe that the amendment would bring the Assembly into disrepute and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Hywel Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit �pik: I beg to move amendment No. 69, page 3, line 14, leave out from 'the' to end of line 15 and insert
	'Senedd has passed a resolution in favour with at least two-thirds of the Assembly Members voting to support it.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 70, in clause 5, page 3, line 25, leave out 'seats' and insert 'Members' voting'.

Lembit �pik: I presume that the amendments are uncontentious and that the Government will accept   them. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), a former Secretary of State for Wales, and others have made great play of the importance of consultation and ensuring that the maximum number of people are involved in any decision.
	It follows, I am sure, that he and others, including the Secretary of State, will be persuaded of the benefits of allowing the decision of the date of an ordinary election to be subject to a resolution by the Assembly, rather than simply being decided by the Secretary of State. I presume that he will also agree that the requirement for a two-thirds majority would provide sufficient security to ensure that such a judgment would not be party political.
	Amendment No. 70 would make it slightly easier for an extraordinary election to be called. The resolution would have to be passed by two thirds of the Assembly Members voting, rather than by two thirds of the total Members. We make that recommendation simply because it seems reasonable to ensure that a resolution for an extraordinary election should not be thwarted simply by the non-attendance of those who might not be keen to see it take place. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the amendments.

Peter Hain: Amendment No. 69 would remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers on changes to the date of an ordinary election, and replace it with a requirement for two thirds of all Assembly Members to vote in favour of such a change. The Secretary of State's power to vary the date of an ordinary election would serve in exceptional circumstances; for example, if the nation were thrown into mourning. In such circumstances, I would expect there to be a national consensus. There would also be a problem with taking the decision in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposes if the National Assembly were not sitting at the time.
	Amendment No. 70 would reduce the trigger for an extraordinary general election to a two-thirds majority of those voting, rather than of all Assembly Members. The calling of an extraordinary election would be a most serious occurrence. It would mean that no party or coalition had been able to form a viable Government. The Assembly would quickly fall into disrepute if an extraordinary general election could be triggered without being supported by two thirds of all Assembly Members.
	If our proposal increases the pressure to reach agreement on a viable Administration, that is exactly the intention. In practice, one would expect all Assembly Members to vote on such a serious issue. However, the Bill as drafted leaves no doubt as to what constitutes a two-thirds majority; it must equate to two thirds or more of all Assembly Members. The amendments would increase uncertainty at critical times in the life of the Assembly, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.

Lembit �pik: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement with amendment No. 70. We simply have a difference of view, and, in the light of that, we can hardly negotiate towards an agreement. I was not really persuaded by the Secretary of State's argument on this issue, and we might have to return to it on another occasion.
	On amendment No. 69, I really do not see why the Secretary of State, who is admittedly pro-devolution, is nevertheless intent on preserving this privilege to an individual who will almost certainly not sit in the Assembly. I do not see why the Secretary of State thinks that someone who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to serve in a Government in Westminster is best equipped to determine the date of an ordinary election in Wales.
	I am disappointed that the Government, and specifically the Secretary of State, take a rather intransigent view on this matter. Every fibre in my body tells me to divide the Committee on it. However, given the excitement that we have had in the past half hour, and the fact that I shall have the opportunity to return to the matter on Reportif I feel provoked to do soin a couple of weeks, and given that the Secretary of State has made his point and I have made mine and we have agreed to differ for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	  
	Candidates at General Elections

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 50, page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert
	'(5)   The list must not include a person
	(a)   who is included on any other list submitted for the Assembly electoral region or any list submitted for another Assembly electoral region,
	(b)   who is an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(c)   who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d)   who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region but is not a candidate of the party.
	(6)   A person may not be an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region if he is
	(a)   included on a list submitted by a registered political party for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(b)   an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for another Assembly electoral region,
	(c)   a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d)   a candidate of any registered political party to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, page 4, line 34, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 10, page 4, line 36, leave out from second 'region' to end of line 38.
	No. 130, page 4, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 94, page 4, line 42, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 95, page 5, line 2, leave out 'or'.
	No. 52, page 5, line 3, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 127, in clause 11, page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 49, in schedule 11, page 161, line 22, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5.
	No. 128, in schedule 11, page 162, line 1, leave out paragraph 5.

Cheryl Gillan: We now come to one of the meatier sections of the Bill, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates; I see him grinning. It is indicative of the strength of feeling on this side of the House that only one amendment in this group is supported only by Conservative Members, that only one is supported only by Liberal Members, and that only one is supported only by Plaid Cymru Members. The rest are supported jointly by Plaid Cymru and ourselves. That illustrates the strength of feeling about what the Government are attempting to do in clause 7.
	When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, there was only one system of voting, which was understood by everyone in the country; first past the post. Now, we have five systems of voting throughout the United Kingdom. We have the first past the post system, also known as the plurality rule, for the Westminster constituencies and local council elections. We have the supplementary vote, which is used in the London mayoral elections and 12 local mayoral elections. The list proportional systemproportional representationis used for the UK European elections, except in Northern Ireland. The single transferable vote system is used in Northern Ireland for Assembly elections, local elections and European parliamentary elections. Finally, there is the additional member system, which is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Assembly.

Alex Salmond: The single transferable vote system is also about to be used for the Scottish local elections.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me. This just goes to show how many voting systems we have on our small set of islands.

Chris Bryant: I hate to add to the hon. Lady's list, but there is yet another example. Single transferable voting is used for the replacement of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Cheryl Gillan: These voting systems are really coming out of the woodwork now. It is only when we start to list them all that we realise exactly the extent of the constitutional vandalism that has been perpetrated by the Labour Government on these islands. If we change the electoral system in the way that is being proposed, yet another system would be added to the list.

Jim Devine: The hon. Lady will be aware of Brian Monteith, a member of her party in Scotland, who stood in a constituency and lost, but was elected to the Scottish Parliament via the list system. He was then expelled from her party, yet he still sits as an MSP. Is not that a farce?

Cheryl Gillan: I do not want to pre-empt any debate that we might have on these issues later, but the hon. Gentleman will perhaps have noticed amendment No. 213. Rather than answering questions about my party, I hope to have the opportunity to probe the Secretary of State on how he views such matters if we reach that amendment later. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because I shall be interested to hear how he would want to apply the rules to members of his own party.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that we are accepting that, so far as this system is concerned, we have got it wrong, just as her own party seems to be accepting that it has got wrong everything that it ever believed in?

Cheryl Gillan: I do like a man who has learned to say that he is sorry. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is one of those rare people.
	This is a serious group of amendments, on which I have a number of points to make. I shall be listening carefully to what the Secretary of State has to say about them, as will many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on this side of the House. We deplore the Labour Government's attempt to rig the electoral system to satisfy Labour Assembly Members, who do not like competition in their own back yard. The Government intend to do this by disqualifying candidates from standing both for a constituency and for the regional party list.
	Significantly, and reinforcing the Labour bias that I allege in the proposal, the Labour-dominated Welsh Affairs Committee, whose report on the Government's White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, was published in December. I know the Secretary of State goes to bed reading it; divided on party lines on this issue. It is quite evident that it is the Labour party versus the rest.
	It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to argue that the proposal was in the Welsh version of the Labour manifesto at the last general election and that he therefore has a mandate. I have a copy of the Welsh Labour manifesto here, and it says Labour will
	end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by voters.
	I do not agree that such Members are elected by the back door. They are elected by the front door, because they are very much in evidence in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
	The Secretary of State has not bothered even to consult or take the views of some of his colleagues. I want to set the debate in context by referring to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who gave a speech to the Hansard Society on 16 January. I am sure the Secretary of State is familiar with her words. The speech was entitled A New Deal for Democracy, and the Secretary of State can find it on the speeches section of the Department for Constitutional Affairs website, as it is a published document. Under the heading, We need to adopt a non-partisan approach, the Minister said:
	Whilst the political parties have a vital role in our democracy, we have to approach change in electoral administration and democratic systems on a non-party basis.
	And though I've stood for election seven times as a Labour candidate, it is not difficult for me to get into non-party mode in carrying out these responsibilities in my new department because there's no other way to do this job. You simply can't make progress in addressing electoral issues from a party-political basis.
	So I work as closely with parliamentarians from the other parties as I do with those from the Government's back-benches.
	Nobody from the Wales Office has worked closely with parliamentarians from other parties. From some of the speeches that have been made during scrutiny of the Bill, I am not even sure whether people from the Department have worked closely with Government Back Benchers, although this is a telling phrase:
	You simply can't make progress in addressing electoral issues from a party-political basis.
	And yet, what we have before us is a proposal on an electoral process that is steeped in party-political aims and ambitions.
	This change has not been called for by anybody except Labour Members. It has not been called for by the Welsh people, nor was it recommended by the Richard commission. I checked in the Library, because I thought that a flood of papers might have been put there by the Secretary of State, which would amount to the body of evidence of the demands for those changes on which we could draw as a Committee. But after checking again as recently as this morning, I am afraid to say that no body of evidence has been deposited by anyone from the Wales Office. I can only conclude that this is not a measure that has been demanded by the people of Wales, but one designed to suit the interests of the Labour party.
	Significantly, this is being proposed when Labour has no regional AMs. There was no such proposal made before the 2003 Assembly elections, when Labour had one regional AM and no complaint about the system was heard at all. [Hon. Members: Ah!] Opposition Members are confirming that I am exactly right in my suppositions on that point.
	I shall turn to comments made by other bodies; why rely on what politicians say? Let us consider some independent commentary on our electoral systems. The Electoral Commission is an independent body established by a Labour Government in 2000 under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is independent of the Government and of political parties, but it is directly accountable to Parliament through a Committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It exists to do something very special; to foster public confidence and participation in elections by promoting integrity, involvement and effectiveness in the democratic process. I think we can all be encouraged by that.
	What does the Electoral Commission say in response to the Government proposals? Its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry on the White Paper concluded:
	In light of the need to encourage voter participation at the Assembly election in 2007, we would caution against any change that is perceived to be partisan and could add to a prevailing distrust of politicians.
	On the evidence available to the Commission . . . we do not believe that the case for change has been made out.
	In fact, it urged the Government to provide more information regarding the justification underpinning their statement.
	The Electoral Commission continued:
	In the time available to respond to the White Paper, it was not feasible for us to commission public opinion research on the issue of dual candidacy. Drawing on our quantitative and qualitative research on public attitudes to the National Assembly election in 2003 . . . we note that the 'Clwyd West problem' as described in the White Paper did not emerge in any of our attitudinal research about voting in the election. As our research included unprompted questions to the public about their reasons for voting or not voting, this may suggest that there was in fact low public salience of the issue at the time.
	In the absence of any research findings on voter attitudes on dual candidacy in the public domain
	the Electoral Commission urged the Government
	to provide more information regarding the justifications underpinning the statement in the White Paper that voters are confused and concerned about the issue.
	It went on:
	It is possible that some of those members of the public said to be critical of dual candidacy may
	not be critical of dual candidacy at all. They may
	in fact be criticising an outcome of proportional representation, compared with the majoritarian 'first past the post' system to which voters in Britain have been traditionally accustomed.

Several hon. Members: rose

Cheryl Gillan: I am willing to give way, but before I do so I must point out that that goes to show that voters are confused because, since 1997, the Government have introduced so many different electoral systems that it has been hard to keep pace.

Peter Bone: Is not the heart of the problem the fact that there are two systemsa list system and a constituency system? Therefore, dual candidacy is quite fair. I cannot see why, other than for political motives, this change is being introduced. A word of warning to the Secretary of State: with the Conservatives on the up and Labour on the way down, this might not be the right way for him to go.

Cheryl Gillan: I leave my hon. Friend's intervention to stand aloneperhaps the Secretary of State will heed his warningbut, yes, that is the crux of the problem.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Lady accept that, given the complexity of the electoral system, if more people understood it, they would be aware of its unfairness?

Cheryl Gillan: I do not think that we are at odds on that, for the simple reason that if people understood the system better they would have no problem with dual candidacy. The Government are particularly confused about this, as the Electoral Commission alleges, perhaps because people are finding it hard to get used to the perception of proportional representation. Certainly, Labour AMs are finding it hard to get used to. They have been used to having things all their own way and I am afraid that this has been a shock to their system, as I have no doubt we will hear again from the Secretary of State.

David Jones: Are we not in danger, however, of underestimating the sophistication of the electorate in Wales? We are constantly told that the electorate are confused about the system. Is it not the case, however, that at the last Assembly election in Clwyd, West, the Labour party won on the first-past-the-post basis, but the Conservative candidate had the greater share of the vote on the list basis? Does not that tend to suggest that the electorate are more sophisticated than the Government suggest?

Cheryl Gillan: If my hon. Friend is saying that the electorate are learning how to play the system, I think that he is absolutely right. I am sure that that is to our advantage in Clwyd, West.
	The Electoral Commission, in preparing its response, contacted all political parties registered to contest elections in Wales. Of those who responded, the majority strongly opposed the change. A perception exists that the change favours incumbency and the current party of Assembly government that holds the large majority of constituency seatsthe Labour party. The conclusion that the Electoral Commission drew on the provision says it all. On the evidence available, it said, it did not believe that a case for a change had been made. The Secretary of State should think hard before going against the opinions of one of our leading independent bodies.
	Opposition to the ban has also been expressed forcefully by the Electoral Reform Society, which concluded:
	We urge the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made.
	Yet another independent organisation is therefore criticising the proposals.

Mark Tami: As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Electoral Reform Society is not an independent organisation. It is an organisation that has set out to promote proportional representation for our system. Arguing that it is some sort of independent voice without its own agenda is totally false.

Cheryl Gillan: The Electoral Commission is independent. The Electoral Reform Society is certainly not financially supported by my party. I do not know whether it is supported by the Liberal Democrats.

Alex Salmond: Would the hon. Lady like to try the Arbuthnott commission, appointed by no less a judicious person than the Secretary of State for Scotland? Surely that was an independent commission.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. He must have seen the document that I have in front of me.
	Scotland currently has the same system for election to the Scottish Parliament. As I understand it, however, there are no proposals for change. Had the issue been a great concern, even at election time, when preparing the Labour party manifesto, the issue could have been addressed. Were the Scottish system so imperfect, changes could have been made when the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 was passed. The Arbuthnott commission, however, reported last week, and concluded:
	Candidates for election to the Scottish Parliament should not be prohibited from standing in a constituency and on the regional list at the same election.
	The Secretary of State was so worried by what the commission said that he had to get a press release out really fast. His response to the Arbuthnott commission on boundary differences and voting systems in Scotland stated:
	The commission's recommendations apply to Scotland, and do not reflect the different circumstances in Wales.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will let me know what conversations he has had with Sir John Arbuthnott. I do not know how many Members have read the Secretary of State's press release, because he went on to say:
	I am confident that if Sir John Arbuthnott had considered the systematic abuses carried out by list Members in Wales, he would have reached exactly the same conclusion as we havethat a ban on dual candidacy is the only effective solution.
	I hope that the Secretary of State has discussed that with Sir John Arbuthnott. I tried to ring Sir John this morning to find out his opinion, but he is away on holiday. I spoke to another member of the Arbuthnott commission this morning, however, who said that the commission considered the situation in Wales exceedingly carefully, so much so that the Secretary of State will find that the Arbuthnott commission refers to Wales in several places, specifically in paragraph 4.21, which alludes to the parallel situation and, for those Members who are interested, states:
	Referred to in Wales as the 'Clwyd West' question, this might in Scotland be called the 'Cunninghame South' question.
	Wales was therefore at the forefront of the minds of members of the Arbuthnott commission. It also refers to Wales in paragraph 4.58, noting specifically that these proposals would affect the quality of candidates. I agree with that. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is now laughing, so, obviously, he is rubbishing the Arbuthnott commission.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, I will make some progress.
	At paragraph 4.58, the commission states:
	As the Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales (Richard Commission) noted, it may encourage parties, particularly small ones, not to field strong candidates in constituency seats, where they have less chance of success, keeping them instead for the region where they would be more likely to be elected. This could have a negative impact on the quality of constituency contests and unduly favour incumbent candidates.
	Therefore, the Arbuthnott commission has definitely considered the Welsh situation, and is making points that are applicable.

Several hon. Members: rose

Cheryl Gillan: I have been generous in giving way to Labour Members. I will give way to some Opposition Members.

Alex Salmond: Would not paragraph 4.60 of the Arbuthnott commission's report be an even better example? It sums up the commission's opposition to this undemocratic practice by quoting from evidence in the response to the White Paper on Wales, which criticised the Secretary of State for trying to preserve Labour's hegemony.

Cheryl Gillan: Yes. I will not read out that part of the Arbuthnott commission report.

David Jones: Has my hon. Friend noticed paragraph 4.57, in which the commission comments specifically on the assertion in the White Paper that the present system
	both devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections?
	Did she note that the commission commented that it
	is not convinced that there is any evidence to support the claims made regarding these perceived problems. There is no survey evidence to suggest that dual candidacy is an issue for voters, or a disincentive to their participation in the political process?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend has encapsulated the point.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, I will make some progress. [Interruption.] No. Plenty of Members want to speak in the debate. I have been generous in giving way, and Members can make their contributions when the time comes.
	It is obvious that the Secretary of State needs to read the Arbuthnott report carefully. He is worried about it; otherwise, why would he have put out a press release on 19 January, shortly after it was announced? He also needs to have a word with Sir John Arbuthnott, because I am worried about a paragraph in a press release that prejudges what the leader of that commission might say. I am worried about the impression that the Secretary of State is giving. We have already seen him trying to give the impression that he has consulted Committees in another place, which is not the case. We need to know exactly what he means when he says things, to whom he has spoken, and how he can put words into the mouth of Sir James when Sir James has not the opportunity to respond. Sir James may agree with the Secretary of State, and that is all well and good, but I note that the Secretary of State has not intervened to tell me that he has spoken to Sir James.

Chris Ruane: He was on holiday.

Cheryl Gillan: He went on holiday at the end of last week; there was plenty of time for the Secretary of State to speak to him before he went on holiday and before the press release was issued on 19 January. He was not on holiday then.
	Interestingly enoughas if to compound all thisthe Secretary of State for Scotland was answering questions in the House on Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) asked him a simple question: was he aware of what was happening, and would he rule out the introduction of the changes that he proposes in Scotland? The Secretary of State replied that he did not
	expect any early changes to be made to the Scotland Act 1998,
	and that he had
	made it clear that I do not think any changes will be possible before the coming elections to the Scottish Parliament.[Official Report, 24 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1291.]
	Why would that be? Might it be that Labour Members in Scotland are in the list system, which does not apply in Wales? I leave the Committee to draw its own conclusions. Other Members may wish to allude to the subject, but I believe that more than one Member is in the list system in Scotland, and one may be a Minister. If that does not represent a level of hypocrisy, it is hard to understand why.

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: Of course, but it will be the last time.

Jim Devine: May I point out that it is Scottish Labour party policy for candidates not to stand in a constituency at the next election, but to stand in a list?

Hon. Members: It is a matter of principle.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not think that it could be described as a matter of principle. That is what I call a convenient intervention from Scottish Members, who have obviously been got at because of all the problems thrown up by the Arbuthnott commission. If that is what they have agreed, of course, they will not be forcing it on the other parties. That is a matter for the Labour party. I assume that the other parties will be able to stand according to the list system and in constituencies as they wish. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do that in the Labour party we are happy for him to do so, but he should not force it on the other, smaller parties.
	I do not think the hon. Gentleman's intervention was all that clever. Why should something that is not happening in Scotland happen in Wales?
	If, as the Secretary of State says, systematic abuses are taking place, we want to see them listed. We want to see them formally recorded. We want to see them dealt with. Instead of altering the electoral system and confusing people even more, why should not the Government alter the Standing Orders? Why should there not be some decent guidelines? Why should the matter not be discussed in the Assembly with the aim of reaching some sort of arrangement? As far as I can see, the only evidence produced by the Secretary of State consists of a load of spats between list and regional Members. We should not legislate to change the electoral system because people cannot get on with each other and are bitching about each other. Why does the Secretary of State not give Assembly Members power to make up their own minds, and allow them to alter their Standing Orders to deal with the so-called abuses?
	I also disagree with what the Secretary of State has said on many occasionsthat he must change the system because people who are losers are perceived to be winners. That upsets the Secretary of State a great deal. I am not sure how his proposals will go any way towards dealing with it, however. If the closed list system is retained, even if dual candidacy is prevented, parties that had lost the constituency election will still be seen to have won a regional seat. There will still be people who are losers, but on this occasion it will be much more apparent that parties are seen to be winners. That is what Kay Jenkins said when she gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: I have given way enough, and am nearing the end of my speech. I feel that some of the interventions have been less than helpful, and indeed rather frivolous. This is an important matter. I can tell from the laughter on the Labour Benches that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a joke, but it is not. We are talking about a serious piece of gerrymandering on the part of his party, which the Committee must discuss. [Interruption.]

Michael Lord: Order. There have been enough sedentary interventions, especially from the parliamentary private secretary, who is not supposed to intervenecertainly not on a regular basis from a sedentary position.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to you, Sir Michael.
	This is a party-political move. Labour politicians in Wales and Assembly Members have had it all their own way, and, as I have said, they now face a bit of competition in their constituencies. There is no demand from the votersI defy any Member to produce the huge body of evidence that people are clamouring for the changeand there has certainly been no demand from any other party. The Secretary of State has had no intention of discussing the matter with other parties, unlike the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who as recently as this month said that it should be discussed across parties. Recently both the Electoral Commission and the Arbuthnott commission opposed the proposal. Academics are against it, but the Government are pressing for it.
	I am appalled that the Government are continuing along these lines, and I invite Members to support our amendments. Unless the Government withdraw their proposals, we shall press ours all the way. Even if the Government use their huge majority to win the vote tonight, I am sure that those in another place will want to cast an eye over the changes, and not to cast aside words of wisdom that have come from so many people as lightly as the Secretary of State is introducing this measure.

Elfyn Llwyd: Like many other Members, I went to the constituency office on Saturday morning; but the pattern of events was different from usual. I could not get into the office because there were tens of thousands of letters from constituents who were concerned about the patent unfairness of the dual candidacy system. It was so bad that I had to order a truck to carry the post away. I could not possibly answer it all. If Labour Members want evidence, there is literally tons of it in Dolgellau waiting to be picked up. I am sure that that will reinforce the facile arguments that we have heard from them so far.
	I rise not just to be a wisecracker but to speak to the Tory amendments and to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and my partyand, I might add, the Scottish National partyhave united in this instance. It does not happen very often, but it is only right that it should happen when such a fundamental matter is involved.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says that it does not happen very often. It has been happening pretty well every week in the Assembly lately, with an unholy grand coalition of opportunistic oppositionists including Plaid Cymru voting alongside the Tories.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman says that it happens every week, but I was not aware that the Scottish National party had Members in the National Assembly.

Alex Salmond: We're coming.

Elfyn Llwyd: They might be at some point.

Chris Bryant: This is risible.

Elfyn Llwyd: Risible arguments are precisely what we heard earlier. What nonsense has been put around. I have great regard for the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) but when he was pressed about the evidence, even he could only say that he had had the odd conversation here and there. Nobody has produced a shred of evidence to prove the case.
	Let us look at the international situation. Dr. Wyn Jones and Dr. Scully said:
	The proposed change is internationally anomalous.
	Their report goes on:
	After extensive consultations with the expert academic community, we have only been able to discover one place where the change proposed in Wales has been implemented. This was in Ukraine, prior to the 2002 parliamentary elections . . . The only other instance we have been able to find where this has even been seriously proposed is very recently for New Brunswick in Canada. Therefore, the suggested change does, frankly, make Wales look odd.
	I would certainly say that that is true.
	The Electoral Commission was cited earlier by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and it has looked dispassionately and independently at the situation. What it had to say about international comparisons is interesting:
	There are around 30 countries that have mixed or additional member electoral systems.
	But no other country bans dual candidacy on the lines of the proposal in the White Paper. We feel that going down that road requires more compelling reasons without those other examples. If we are to operate outside international democratic norms, we have to have particular reasons for doing so.
	The Secretary of State's response, of course, was to rubbish that and pretend that academics highly respected in Welsh and international politics had somehow got it wrong. If he says later that the matter has been considered in New Zealand and Canada, he will be right, but it has been turned down in both, which hardly helps his argument.
	The Secretary of State also offered a gratuitous insult to the Electoral Commission in saying that it played a valuable role but could get things wrong and had got this wrong. If we are all, collectively, getting it wrong, why does not the Secretary of State give us some proof instead of conjecture and stories about thousands of people who are beside themselves all night because of the unfairness of the system?

Hywel Williams: Does my hon. Friend find it strange that the Secretary of State and the First Minister have rubbished the Electoral Commission but that the head of that commission has only just been reappointed for a further five years? If he gets things so wrong, why are they reappointing him?

Elfyn Llwyd: Precisely so. That is a question that the Secretary of State may wish to address. We are told all the time that the Government like to consult: indeed, they do consult, but if they do not like it, they throw the consultation paper away because it is not what they wanted to hear. What is happening is obvious to anyone who can read. It is disgraceful.
	The Bill has good things in it but also contains machinery for the worst possible kind of gerrymandering. That is absolutely obvious. The First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, said there was widespread support across non-political people in Wales for this proposition. Where is that widespread support? Dr. Jonathan Bradbury of the university of Wales, Swansea, and Dr. Meg Russell of the constitution unit at University College, London, said that when they were looking for evidence there was
	public disquiet over defeated candidates winning lists,
	but conceded:
	This is the principal problem cited in the White paper. However, it is the weakest part of the case given the lack of clear evidence to prove that there is a problem.
	They went on:
	However, there is no evidence that there is actual public disquiet. Of course, there is also no evidence to clearly prove that there is not.
	Glyn Mathias, an electoral commissioner, said:
	This issue did not figure in that research. We asked a whole series of questions and sought unprompted replies and this issue did not arise . . . what concerns us is that there is no evidence whatever in the White Paper to back up this proposal. There is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore we came to the conclusion that we think that the case for change has not been made.
	In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Dr. Scully and Dr. Richard Wyn Jones, from Aberystwyth, said:
	Firstly, in the White Paper there is a very bold, unqualified statement about public opinion, which is not backed up with any reference to evidence at all. Secondly, we say that when we go back and look at what evidence does exist that is relevant to it, it does not appear to support the statement that is made in the White Paper . . . The total number of people who mentioned anything at all as a reason for not voting in 2003 in our sample was two; that is out of more than 500 who said that they did not vote. That would suggest that the electoral system was not an important factor, as the White Paper puts it, 'acting as a disincentive to vote'.
	In other words, it was absolute nonsense. In somewhat more colourful language, the two doctors tore into the White Paper:
	Given that the reasons offered in the White Paper do not stack up, frankly, are not supported by the evidence, given also that Labour currently do not have any members coming through the list so if it is going to create problems for any parties it is going to create problems for other parties, it is difficult to rule out the hypothesis of partisan motivation. I have no particular private evidence on that matter but, as we say, even if this is not intended it is unfortunate because it is going to look deeply partisan. Whether or not that was the original intention it is going to look that way and if there is one thing that people dislike almost as much as paedophiles living nearby and bent coppers, it is politicians who seem to be stitching things up for themselves . . . it does appear to be trying to adjust the electoral system in favour of one party against the interests of other parties, and it is not being done

Peter Hain: indicated dissent.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am quoting this; I am not making it up:
	it is not being done on an inter-partisan, cross-party basis. Therefore, to the extent that the public know and care about it, it is likely to be unpopular.

Wayne David: Perhaps we could take a break from the hon. Gentleman's reading

Elfyn Llwyd: It is evidence I am giving you. Evidence.

Wayne David: If the hon. Gentleman considers the other evidence presented to the Welsh Affairs Committee, he will find other opinions expressed. Dr. Jonathan Bradbury, for example, and Dr. Meg Russell express other opinions. The idea that all the academic evidence is one-sided is totally false, and he knows it.

Elfyn Llwyd: If the hon. Gentleman had been awake, he would have heard me refer to Meg Russell, who said that there was no evidence.

Chris Bryant: But she still supported the change.

Elfyn Llwyd: She might have done, but she said there was no evidence.

Sylvia Heal: Order. Would hon. Members please conduct debate in the proper manner?

Elfyn Llwyd: From Meg Russell's constitutional unit, her colleague Professor Robert Hazell concluded that the proposals are
	nasty, spiteful and seemingly driven by partisan motives.
	Barry Winestrobe, reader in law at Napier university, who has lobbied us on the matter, says:
	Even if the proposal is simply to prevent unsuccessful constituency candidates being elected for the region comprising that constituency, this seems an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of potential candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election . . . If Ministers are genuinely concerned with addressing democratically harmful public perceptions, then they should consider whether such legislation will not be seen by that same public as partisan, and not something which would worry the Government if the party distribution of constituency AMs and regional AMs was different.
	Moreover, the New Zealand commission ruled out a ban on dual candidacy on the specific grounds that it would be unfair on smaller parties.
	Let me attempt to sum up. We have heard nothing of substance from the Government to support the ban that they propose. The Electoral Commission has said that it would go outside international democratic norms.
	The Government say that they have carried out extensive public research, but the issue was not even raised in the Clwyd, West constituency. The Electoral Commission cautioned against
	introducing a change to the electoral process that is as yet untested over a period of time.
	The electoral commissioner also said that
	there is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore, we came to the conclusion that we do not think the case for change has been made.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee found little support for the Government's proposed solution. Dr. Richard Wyn Jones and Dr. Roger Scully said that it had a partisan motivation. The Electoral Reform Society has considerable concerns and does not think that the case has been made. It also advocates the single transferable vote.
	It is interesting to note that there are no plans to make this change in Scotland, possibly because Peter Peacock is a Labour MSP from the Highlands and Islands and is also a Labour Minister. I know that other Members will wish to speak in this debate, but I have a copy of Sir   John Arbuthnott's report. I shall refer briefly to it, although others will wish to refer to it in greater detail. It states:
	Dual candidacy is a common and accepted feature of mixed member proportional systems across the world. Indeed, in some cases candidates are expressly required to stand in both contests. We suggest that dual candidacy only seems problematic to some people here because of the legacy of constituency representation within British political culture and the hegemony which this has secured for some parties. Candidates coming in second or third place who are then elected through the regional list are only losers in the context of a first past the post, 'winner takes all' electoral system. This logic does not sit well within a proportional system and introducing it devalues and undermines the concept of proportionality. The criticism, and the pejorative terms in which it is sometimes put, does little to enhance the legitimacy of regional MSPs.
	So far, we have heard little mention of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am no expert on it, although I do a little practice in the area, but I will take leading counsel's advice on the legality of that issue. If I have that advice before Report stage, I shall put it before the House.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has a very good point. We are signatories to the protocol in relation to free and fair elections and the expression of the views of the electorate. It must be questionable whether the proposals fit with that, especially given that the Government are engaging in discriminatory tinkering with an aspect of the electoral process in one part of the country while allowing it to be maintained in another.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely. This is a nasty, spiteful example of gerrymandering that has no real place in a modern democracy, least of all this place.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that she believed that the proposals had been introduced because Labour politicians in Wales did not like competition. I, for one, enjoy the fact that I face elected politiciansalbeit to the Assembly and by different meansof a different political persuasion. I relish the political argument and competition, because it keeps us all on our toes. I know that many hon. Members disagree with me, but it is one of the reasons why I would, in the majority of situations, support some form of proportional representation. It is better for the Government of the people to reflect the diversity of the people. That is why, broadly speaking, I support the way in which we constituted the Assembly and the additional Member system.
	As a cheeky aside, I may say that my experience has been that the more exposure the smaller parties get in my local area, the more my vote goes up. On the whole, I relish the opportunities that Leanne Wood is given to speak in public and I am delighted that the Plaid vote has collapsed.
	The important point, which Opposition Members have refused even to consider, is that some of us who support the system that we introduced also believe that some of the abuses that we have seen are inappropriate and undermine the whole concept of trying to build a representative Government who reflect the diversity of Welsh opinion. For instance, it happens with monotonous regularity that someone pretends to be a constituency Member when they are not. There are hundreds of different ways that they can do so, and every time an Assembly Member is told off for doing it, they find a new way to do it, which shows the ingenuity of some of them. It is wrong.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman must realise that no Assembly Member has ever been told off for saying that they are a Member for a particular constituency. The Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly has made it clear that he recognises all Assembly Members as being equal. It is something that we all live with.

Chris Bryant: I believe that all Assembly Members are equal and should be regarded equally. I also believe that all Members of this House should be regarded as equala position that the hon. Gentleman does not entirely share. If Assembly Members have not been told off, they should be told off. It is simple enough: if an Assembly Member seeks to portray themselves as the constituency Member for the Rhondda, when they were not elected as such, it is a deception that taxpayers' money should not be allowed to be spent on perpetuating. It is a form of fraud and it should be stopped.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes what I hope is a hypothetical point. Does he have any evidence that an AM has sought to pass themselves off as a constituency Member? If so, the Assembly should deal with that in its Standing Orders.

Chris Bryant: I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with me. It happens so frequently that we have almost given up sending letters to the Presiding Officer, because he is of course an accessory after the crime.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. The hon. Gentleman has accused some unnamed Assembly Members of fraud. I know that he is speaking under privilege, but if an hon. Gentleman makes an accusation as serious as that we should hear the names of the people he accuses of that criminal offence.

The First Deputy Chairman: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman be specific, but he may wish to reconsider the words that he used.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the intervention, because I wish to make it clear that I am not accusing anyone of financial fraud or electoral fraud. I am making it clear that I think that people are acting fraudulently if they try to persuade the people that they are the elected Member for the constituency of the Rhondda, when they plainly are not. It is no good saying that people can say that they are the Assembly Member based in the Rhondda, because that is an attempt to deceive the people of the Rhondda.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten what he said. He said that because it involved the use of public money, it was a form of fraud. Does he stand by that assertion?

Chris Bryant: It is entirely dishonourable for someone to use public funds to send out leaflets and press releases claiming to be the Assembly Member based in the Rhondda and trying thereby to deceive the people of the Rhondda into believing that they were elected for that constituency. I simply believe that is wrong. Furthermore, that is an act of fraud[Interruption.] Fraudulent and fraud come from the same base[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to people who are not Members of the House, which does not mean to say that one would condone any such behaviour, but as I understand the hon. Gentleman he was referring more to the generality than to the specifics.

Chris Bryant: rose

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.

Wayne David: I want to report the facts to the Committee, with a quotation from the Assembly Member to whom Members referred. Leanne Wood said:
	We need to be thinking much more creatively as to how we better use staff budgets
	in the Assembly
	for furthering the aims of the party.
	Does not that stand for itself?

Chris Bryant: Absolutely. I think the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) wanted to intervene[Interruption.] If he could calm down

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This part of the debate has gone far enough. I ask hon. Members to return to the amendments under discussion.

Chris Bryant: I think it would be best if I gave way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, if he can be calm

Hon. Members: Oh.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just suggested that we continue the debate. I call Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
	Another point that Opposition Members have refused to understand is that regardless of whether tens of thousands of people have come to our surgeries or written to us about the issue, we believe there to be an injustice. It is an injustice if all have won and all must therefore have prizes, even though some people were not elected in the same system.

Philip Hollobone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman or to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), if she will forgive me.

Cheryl Gillan: I was not leaning forward to intervene; I was fascinated.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's fascination.

Philip Dunne: rose

Chris Bryant: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Labour Members believe that there has been an injustice and that it is important for us to put it right. I note that Members have pointed out that other countries have not done so, but other countries have different traditions of proportional representation, not least in New Zealand. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, we do not have a historical tradition of PR. In other countries, such as Spain, France or Italy, most politicians would deliberately put high-ranking, publicly known figures at the top of their lists to attract people to vote in both halves of the election. We do not have that tradition, which is why the injustice element is a much more predominant argument and thus far more important.
	Some people have argued that the Labour party is acting in a partisan way and I understand that argument. However, people do not seem to understand that it would probably be in our electoral interest, in the list vote, to put Rhodri Morgan at the top of every list in every region in Wales. That would be the best way for us to attract votes, because it would be clearer to people that that was how they could vote Labour and ensure that Rhodri Morgan was running the Assembly. I believe that it is inappropriate for us to have that electoral advantage, so I do not believe that we are acting in a partisan way. In fact, for those who make that argument, the measure can be partisan only if they believe we will never lose a constituency seat. Those are the only circumstances in which the measure would be partisan.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham argued that the Electoral Commission is independent, so it is important that we always accept its advice. However, it is an important principle that we maintain our right, as a Parliament, to take a different decision from the Electoral Commission. Indeed, her party agrees; for instance, her party supports giving a national insurance number when registering for voting, but the Electoral Commission disagrees. It is important to maintain the theology that the Electoral Commission provides advice but that it is not for the commission to decide. We can choose, or not choose, to take that advice.
	The most important theology of all in democracy is not only that a person cannot stand in two elections, in two systems, on the same day. Incidentally, we abolished that when Keir Hardie stood in two elections on different days; he failed to be elected on the first day, but succeeded on the next, when he was first elected as a Labour Member of Parliament, which is why it is no longer possible to be elected for two constituencies.

Lembit �pik: It is possible to stand in two seats in a general election.

Chris Bryant: Not any more.
	It is essential that we maintain the theology that if a political party puts a measure in its election manifesto, it should have the right to see it put through the electoral process. Members who throw that principle aside do so at their peril.

Lembit �pik: I rise to speak to amendment No. 130 and to talk about the principle under discussion. I understand the Secretary of State's dislike of the system as it stands, but having listened to the debate, I can say with fair confidence that, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for some of us that regional list Members may purport to focus primarily on a constituency, there is nevertheless a compelling democratic case to allow that to happen. I start where the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) left off: unless I am very much mistaken, one is entitled to stand for election in two constituencies in a general election. However, if one is elected in both seats, one must decide which to represent.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is correct about that, as the law stands. The same candidate stood against the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) and me in the general election last year, but under the Electoral Administration Bill, supported by the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, the law that allows that to happen will be abolished.

Lembit �pik: The bottom line is that things have not changed. Furthermore, I have not heard a single hon. Member on either side of the House argue that Britain's parliamentary processes have been perverted by the opportunity to stand for election in two places. Obviously, by inference, the Secretary of State may want to respond to that point. Let me be clear that I do not disrespect the difference of viewI understand itbut the Liberal Democrat party is concerned that, whatever the motivations of the Secretary of State and others, the provision very much looks like a partisan step, because of the current electoral mathematics of Wales.
	The provisions are obviously intended to prevent candidates from standing for election on both a constituency and a regional list. We have been discussing the two reasons that Government have cited for that course of action, the first of which is the Clwyd, West problem, whereby candidates who seem to lose constituency elections can become Assembly Members via the list. To paraphrase a member of the Government, people who are losers are seen to be winners. The Government's second argument is that the provisions will prevent list Members from abusing their position for political advantage. Both arguments have been rehearsed to an extent.

Cheryl Gillan: Many arguments have been cited, but it is still undeniable that such a change would not stop the abuses, as alleged by the Labour party, because a list Member, even if he did not stand for the constituency, could still open an office and say that he was the regional Member based in Rhondda or wherever. So the provision will not stop the very things that Labour Members are bleating about.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady makes an accurate point, which is supported by all Opposition Members.

Philip Hollobone: As someone who has followed the debate closely but who represents an English seat, what I do not understand is why, if Assembly Members are abusing their position, that is not dealt with by Standing Orders in the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: The answer is that the perception of abuse is not an objective interpretation of what is going on; it is a subjective interpretation derived entirely in the minds of Ministers and other Labour Members. Their paranoia causes them to interpret such things as abuse, while other people may interpret them as showing political initiative.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Leanne Wood, who was very unfairly mentioned earlier, was completely exonerated by the appropriate Assembly Committee?

Lembit �pik: That puts me in a difficult position, because I listened with the greatest of interest as Leanne Wood's words were quoted. Perhaps I should now rule myself out of order and therefore not speak about her specifically, although I am sure that other hon. Members will, and perhaps the Minister will say something about that, too.

David Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I will come back to that point, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can hold on until I do.
	Let me deal with the Clwyd, West question. The White Paper said that the current arrangement for dual candidacy
	devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts a disincentive to vote in constituency elections.
	However, we have heard already that, despite the jovial and ironic comments made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), none of us has received sacks full of post about the issue from the general public. This has not been the cause of insomnia or outrage in Montgomeryshire and I do not believe that it has been to any significant extent outside the village of politicians themselves. I do not believe that the public really talk about this. Although that does not mean that we should not talk about it, we need to recognise that it is not realistic for the Government to suggest that they are responding to public opinion. The pressure of public opinion simply is not there on this issue.

Alex Salmond: That also seems to be the opinion of the Labour party in Wales. In its manifesto of 114 pages and, I estimate, about 30,000 words, it merely manages one single sentence on this subject. If it was the burning issue, one would think that it would have been highlighted all over the manifesto.

Lembit �pik: I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I leave Ministers to respond to it, as I am sure they will.
	To return to the Electoral Reform Society and its comments, I should first say that I believe that it is biased. It is hell-bent on ensuring democratic systems that are actually fair to the electorate and to candidates. In that sense, we can agree that its agenda is fairly transparent. Which one of us in the Chamber disagrees with its intent? Let us get away from the suggestion of partisanship because the Electoral Reform Society has a laudable record of acting in a non-partisan way in what it believes to be the best interests of democracy.
	As others have done, I will quote the Electoral Reform Society. It says:
	It has been almost universally agreed that there is little evidence to back up
	the Government's
	claims.
	Indeed, in her submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Kay Jenkins, the head of office at the Electoral Commission, said:
	There is no evidence that the Clwyd West so-called problem has had any impact on voter participation . . . We have got a very extensive body of research on what makes people vote and not vote across Britain and particularly specifically in Wales, and it is on that basis that we say it is not an issue we could say has ever been raised with us.
	It is not an issue that has even been raised with the Electoral Reform Society. I shall be very interested to hear the Government's alternative evidence on that. We have already established that the Electoral Reform Society has quite clearly categorised itself as little short of obsessive about democracy in this country. One would imagine that it would act as a magnet for comments, but it did not receive a single piece of evidence on this matter.
	At the Welsh Affairs Committee, Dr. Roger Scully and Dr. Richard Wyn Jones gave specific evidence that has already been quoted. I shall not repeat it all except to highlight one crucial point:
	The total number of people who mentioned anything at all as a reason for not voting in 2003 in our sample was 2; that is out of more than 500 who said that they did not vote.
	I suggest therefore that we may not have worked out the answer to why turnout was, in many people's view, depressingly low, but it is extremely unlikely that the finger of blame points at this particular constitutional circumstance in which an individual is able to stand as a constituency candidate and simultaneously on a list.
	It is true that the Welsh Affairs Committee was split on this issue. It voted 5:4 to back the Government's stance but sadlyand exceptionally on this occasionit was perfectly obvious that the vote split on party lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) voted against the proposals in the Bill, as did the three Conservative Members. It is clear that the situation was, at least to those of us who observed it from the outside, motivated by party political interests.

David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording of the Committee's conclusions is incredibly weak? It refers to
	Taking into consideration evidence to the Committee, informal feedback from the public,
	and that was a  Labour amendment. In other words, the evidence before the Committee was completely inadequate, so we are talking about the extra-sensory perception that somehow managed to find its way before the Committee.

Lembit �pik: That is actually an insult to extra-sensory perception.

Chris Bryant: You know something about that.

Lembit �pik: Yes, I know something about the subject. I knew that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that.
	The reality is that there is precious little evidence. The Secretary of State knows that I understand that he can put forward arguments in defence of the change, but we have not heard them yet. A large aspect of the defence might be public opinion, but we can safely say that that defence does not stand up to scrutiny.
	Let me turn to the abuse of position by list Members. The Secretary of State told the Welsh Affairs Committee that the existing electoral arrangements had been subject to
	systematic abuse for party advantage by Opposition parties.
	He cited the fact that 15 out of 20 list Members had set up offices in their parties' target seats and said that taxpayers' money was thus being used to fund constituency offices for party political gain.
	If such an activity is the Government's other key reason, they must explain why the change will prevent it. Indeed, they must go further because they have to tell us the changes that they will make to ensure that such a thing does not happen in other circumstances, including in the event of a general election. To the best of my knowledge, not one single regulationeither in force, or proposed by the Governmentwould prevent me from basing my party office in Neath, Rhondda, Ogmore, Ceredigion, or anywhere else. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly why he thinks that it is so pernicious for a representative of a regional seat to be based in a target constituency that he wishes to change the very basis on which a person can stand for election?

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether there are any rules to prevent Members of the European Parliament from opening offices anywhere in their regions? For example, it would be possible for a Labour regional MEP to open an office in Chesham and Amersham at present, but as far as I know, the Government do not wish to change the existing rules.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady gives us further evidence of the contradictions in the Government's position. A further example would be councillors. We can all agree that the most effective campaigners and councillors that Wales has ever seen are Liberal Democrats. There can be few hon. Members in the Chamber who are not Liberal Democrats who relish the prospect of an army of Liberal Democrat councillors marching into town to put right the wrongs that they have failed to address. Given the incontrovertible evidence of the effectiveness of Liberal Democrat councillors, is the Secretary of State planning to ban them from basing their activities in constituencies held by other parties, such as Neath, Ogmore or Rhondda?

Si�n James: We are getting into the realms of asteroids here. People expect their representatives to be where they are accessiblethat is not rocket science. They want their representatives to be where they can be found, so why not spread them around? If representatives base themselves in one spot, it is great for them and their political aspirations, but it does not do a lot for people in the wider region. For example, would it not be nice if someone in Llanelli opened an office in Caernarfon, or if someone else opened an office in Aberystwyth? If people were to spread themselves around, they would be a lot more effective and would get a lot more respect from the public. Hon. Members have already asked what we have to do about this. We have heard about

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are meant to be brief.

Lembit �pik: I forgive the length of the intervention, Mrs. Heal, because we can see what is happening to the hon. Lady. She is frit, because of the extraordinary effectiveness of my fellow Liberal Democrat councillors, and Peter Black

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Can we get back to debating the main components of the amendment?

Lembit �pik: I apologise, Mrs. Heal. I was responding directly to the hon. Lady's intervention, and I would like to add two points of clarification. First, asteroids are rocket science. Secondly, any politician will seek to make a deep impact in his or her neighbourhood. Just as local councillors will seek to maximise the effectiveness of their political operation by basing their offices where they think that would be in the best interests of their party, it is hardly surprising that politicians elected to the Welsh Assembly will seek to maximise the effectiveness of their work, in their party interests as well as in those of the people whom they have been elected to represent, by basing their offices in an expedient fashion.
	I have some experience in this regard, because there is Conservative activity of that kind in the constituency of Montgomeryshire. I do not always feel comfortable about it, because obviously, it is the Conservatives' strategy to maximise their effectiveness and their profile in a seat that they once heldalthough I hope that they will not hold it again.
	To prevent such activity, one would have to gerrymander the regulations specifically to forbid politicians from one party to base their political operation in a constituency represented by another party. However attractive that idea might be to me on an emotional level, I cannot see how it could be enforced in any manner other than one expedient for the party that introduced the regulations.
	The Electoral Reform Society pointed out that
	a ban on dual candidacy will not provide a solution to this dilemmawhether or not they are permitted to stand as constituency candidates, there is nothing to stop list candidates from targeting particular constituencies on behalf of their parties.
	It concluded:
	We urge the Government to reconsider their plan to plan dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not adequately been made.
	There are aspects of the idea that I find attractive, and perhaps I was more sympathetic to the Minister's position before the debate than I am now.

Chris Bryant: You haven't heard him yet.

Lembit �pik: I meant sympathetic to what I anticipate the Minister's position will be.

Roger Williams: It is his Bill.

Lembit �pik: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it is the Minister's Bill, so we do have some clue about what he will say. None the less, I fully accept that he may stand up and say, The Opposition are right. I'll think again. I'll accept these amendments. If he does, he will not only be a hero to the Opposition, but he will be carried through the streets of Wales by the tens of thousands of people who will have read Hansard and realised how wrong they were to clog up the post of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
	However, I think that I can guess to some extent what the Minister will say. His intention is noble; he wants to right what he believes is a wrong, and he is probably genuinely convinced that his position is not party political, but is in the interests of Wales. I ask him to recognise that what he really seems to be doing is legislating for the present circumstances in which Labour finds itself, not for the long-term interests of Welsh politics as a whole. Indeed, if the Government were more persuaded of the case in principle they would be acting on a legislative basis in Scotland, and it is obvious that they have no intention of doing that.
	We have had a useful debate so far, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I counsel him to realise that not all of us are trying to score points off the Government[Interruption]as I am sure other hon. Members would agree. Some of us are looking at the long-term constitutional interests of the Welsh democratic settlement. The danger of using short-term thinking to generate legislation is that it has long-term unintended consequences. Far from solving the problems that the Minister says he is trying to solve, he may be about to introduce something that not only creates a democratic injustice for the candidates but that could be challenged in human rights legislation, as the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) rightly said. I look forward to the Minister's reply, and I am sure that he will provide us with a reflective perspective on the issue. Notwithstanding that, I hope that the Government will think again.

Wayne David: Our debate is an impassioned one, and this part of the Bill has excited more interest and perhaps controversy than any other part. I should like to address three of the main arguments that the Opposition have made against the Government proposal.
	First, we hear consistently that this is part of an attempt to enhance the electoral position of the Labour party. It has been suggested that it is an electoral plot, a means of gerrymandering, or an underhand method to pervert the democratic system. It is nothing of the sort. We have all heard those accusations, but we have not heard a single concrete example of the way in which that gerrymandering will be carried out. No one has demonstrated that, and no one can do so. It is possible[Interruption.] I was hoping that someone would provide an example of the way in which the system could be gerrymandered but, despite the external pops, that is not possible. No one inside or outside the Chamber has demonstrated how the change proposed by the Government could enhance the Labour party's position. Quite simply, it cannot.
	In fact, an interesting article by Dr. John Cox, published recently, demonstrates the contrary case. I do not know whether Opposition Members have received a copy, but it has been e-mailed to all Labour Members. Dr. Cox, who is no friend of the Labour partyin fact, he is an implacable opponentsaid that the Labour party is wrong if it thinks that the measure will enhance its position. I stress that Labour does not think that way, but Dr. Cox argues that the measure will adversely affect its interests.

David Davies: I have not had the privilege of reading that comment, but clearly Dr. John Cox thought that the Labour party believed that it was an advantage, otherwise he would not have issued that warning.

Wayne David: The article by Dr. John Cox is designed principally to create mischief in the Labour ranks. He cites at length the Secretary of State and accurately, I thinkthe Under-Secretary. Those arguments speak for themselves, and they are set out clearly. No oneI repeat, no onehas offered a convincing argument or, indeed, any argument at all to explain how the measure will enhance the Labour party's position.

David Davies: rose

Wayne David: I shall give the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) a chance to make an argument.

David Davies: The hon. Member will accept that if the rules come into effect they will affect only the parties that win seats as a result of proportional representation in the regional list. All the regional list Assembly Members are members of parties other than the Labour party.

Wayne David: The fact of the matter is that the rule applies to all parties and all candidates. There is no question of it helping the Labour party or Plaid Cymru; it simply provides more fairness for everyone. That is what it is all about. Opposition Members, however, do not like the term fairness, which is obviously antipathetic to everything that they stand for.

Peter Hain: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ban on dual candidature would not change the distribution of a single seat and that the outcome of an election would be exactly the same? Gerrymandering involves one party using the system to obtain a disproportionate electoral advantage.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend is correct. The provision is not about enhancing the position of a single party.

Cheryl Gillan: rose

Wayne David: May I point out that I am more gracious in giving way to the hon. Lady than she was to me?

Cheryl Gillan: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman. I was not trying to be ungracious; I was trying to be quick, although it still looks like we will not have time to discuss major provisions in the Bill. If the provision will not affect the smaller parties, why does not the Secretary of State adopt the approach of the Labour party in Wales, which is voluntarily not to stand in constituencies in the list system? That would be perfect, because it would leave the smaller parties, which would be elected only on the list system, to get on with it. The Labour party should adopt that approach as a self-denying ordinance.

Wayne David: I am glad that the hon. Lady has recognised that the Labour party has set an excellent example, but unfortunately the other parties have not followed it, and it is therefore necessary to legislate to ensure that the rules of internal fairness apply to everybody. We are extending fairness across the board.
	Secondly, the Arbuthnott report suggests that dual candidacy should not be banned in Scotland. However, there is the obvious fact that Wales is not Scotland, and just because something is proposed for Scotland, it does not automatically follow that it should be introduced in Wales. Wales is an independent, freestanding country, and we should not be dictated to by what happens north of the border.
	The electoral systems in Wales and Scotland are profoundly different, because a larger proportion of Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected by the additional Member systemin Scotland, the percentage is 42 per cent.; in Wales, it is 33 per cent.so we cannot use easy or simplistic parallels. [Interruption.] Those are the facts, which speak for themselves.
	Although I do not want to interfere in Scottish politics, the Arbuthnott report is confused. On the one hand, it argues against dual candidature, but then suggests the introduction of STV for elections to the European Parliament. Where is the logic in that argument? If the report advocates STV for the European Parliament, it should advocate STV for the Scottish Parliament. The argument in the report is not intellectually consistent and does not stand up to careful analysis.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr.   Devine) was anxious to intervene and disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Arbuthnott commission considered the open choice of the electorate. When it suggested the introduction of STV for the European Parliament, it proposed an open list for the additional member system, which would allow the electorate to choose.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the systems are profoundly different? If one argues for consistent reform, one must argue for complimentary, if not identical, electoral systems.
	Hon. Members have referred to international examples as though there are no arguments against dual candidacy worth considering, except so far as Wales is concerned. I refer Members to information that has come from Canada regarding the situation there. A commission on legislative democracy that was set up in New Brunswick concluded:
	The Commission recommends that candidates not be able to present themselves in both a single member constituency and on a party list for the same election. The Commission heard that in some jurisdictions where candidates are able to run simultaneously on both ballots, voters are displeased with the case where a candidate is not successful in a single member constituency, but is elected anyway by virtue of being placed on top of a party's list.
	It is important to recognise that the situation is definitely not as one-sided as Opposition Members have suggested.
	The third argument that has been advanced concerns evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee by the Electoral Reform Society and others. As I pointed out earlier, that evidence was far more balanced than Opposition Members have suggested. It is important to say that the Electoral Reform Society emphasised, above all else, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding among most people as regards the electoral system and how it works. That is the essential point that it wished to convey. It is therefore hardly surprising that it was able to conclude that it had had very few representations made to it about inherent unfairness in the system.

Mark Williams: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of information, that evidence was given by the Electoral Commission, not the Electoral Reform Society. I can vouch for that as a member of the Committee.

Wayne David: The Committee had evidence from the Electoral Reform Society and from the Electoral Commission. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reread that evidence.
	It has been consistently argued that the Government have no empirical, objective evidence to support their case for introducing a ban on dual candidacy. That has been repeated time and again in this Chamber and outside. Mindful of that fundamental criticism, I commissioned a report myself, with a think-tank, the Bevan Foundation, which is completely independent and non-party political. The report was based on the responses of 47 respondents in three constituencies in south WalesLlanelli, Swansea, East and my own constituency of Caerphillyconcerning the electoral system and how it works. They had not been asked what they thought on the street; they were ordinary people brought together in a situation in which they were free to speak their mind without any partisanship.
	The first conclusion, unsurprisingly, was that most of the respondents did not understand the electoral system and did not know why two votes were being asked of them. When it was explained to them how the system worked, they had some interesting views.

Cheryl Gillan: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has commissioned a piece of research. I would like to know how long it took, how much it cost, who paid for it, and whether he would make the full details available in the Libraries of both Houses. That would be very helpful to all members of the Committee. However, I must point out that if he individually commissioned it as a Labour party member, it would perhaps lack the independence that he claims for it.

Wayne David: It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady is so cynical about what ordinary people in Wales have to say. The debate is one that Opposition Members hold between themselves; it is a debate of the chattering classes. The Chamber has suddenly gone quiet. The debate is about how we enhance our personal position despite what the people of Wales want. When they have a voice and a report, which expresses their feelings, is published, the Opposition parties are silenced and frightened by it. I challenge other hon. Members to commission research, convene focus groups and listen to what the ordinary people of Wales have to say. I guarantee that they do not want dual candidates.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe in first past the post and I have no doubt that he is right that, once one departs from that system, the majority of people, when asked if they understand the electoral system, reply that they have not the slightest idea about what is going on. However, the system at least has an intellectual coherence, which the Bill would remove. Although the Secretary of State claimed that the clause would make no difference, does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the smaller parties would be disadvantaged by the proposals? The smaller the party, the greater the likely disadvantage for those who wish to maximise the chance of getting their chosen people into the Assembly. The proposals will undermine those people and I should be grateful if he dealt with that.

Wayne David: That was an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman referred to the chosen people as if some had the God-given right to serve in the National Assembly. Those people want the electoral system that is most convenient for them. However, we are considering democracy, fairness and extending a system to which people can relate and understand because it is inherently fair.
	Let me cite some of the conclusions

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: No, I simply want to tell hon. Members what ordinary people are saying on the streets, in the chapels and in the public houses of Wales. [Interruption.] We can hear the chattering classes opposite; they do not like it. A proportion of the respondents to the survey did not like the system because they viewed election by the back door as suspicious. They do not understand how individuals can lose and win an election on the same day. They cannot understand how a system, such as that in Clwyd, West, where there are five candidates and four of them are elected, is morally justifiable. One wins the election but the others get in through the back door. What is the justification for that? There is none.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that he made last week about losers becoming winners. Has he noted the Arbuthnott commission's findings? One conclusion states:
	Candidates coming in second or third place who are then elected through the regional list are only 'losers' in the context of a first past the post, winner takes all electoral system. This logic does not sit well within a proportional system and introducing it devalues and undermines the concept of proportionality.
	Either the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have proportional representation or he does not.

Wayne David: The system for electing the Welsh Assembly is primarily first past the post. It produces some proportionality but we do not have a proportional system. The quote from the Arbuthnott commission does not therefore apply to Welsh circumstances.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: No. [Hon. Members: Give way!] No, I have taken plenty of interventions.

Chris Bryant: Does my hon. Friend accept that the other parties oppose the change because they are worried about getting enough candidates now, without having to increase the number of candidates? The people who are being profoundly partisan are that lot over there.

Wayne David: Absolutely. That was an objective observation of the chattering classes' concerns. They are worried about their self-interest and their own side; they have no interest in democracy or what the people say.
	Ordinary people have conclusively said through the Bevan Foundation report that they do not want election through the back door, they do not want losers to become winners, and they do not want politicians to have two bites at the cherry. The Government's proposals are fairness personified and the most refined form of democracy. It is unfortunate that Opposition parties do not accept that reality.

David Davies: May I declare an interest as a Member of the Welsh Assembly? I have no interest in changing the voting system, because I have always won elections under the first-past-the-post system, which I support. I do not like proportional representation. I do not like the fact that it breaks the accountability with the electorate, or the fact that it gives the party managers too much of a say in who goes to the top of the list. They often pick the yes-men rather than the people who will stand up for their constituents, although I am not pointing the finger in any particular direction in that regard.
	Having said that, however, as a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, and someone who supports the Union and who did not want the Welsh Assembly, I have accepted the result of the referendum that was held some eight years ago. Intrinsic to that referendum was the voting system that the Labour Government put in place. It was their system, not ours. It is simply not good enough that, seven or eight years after the referendum, they have decided that it does not quite suit their purpose to continue with that system, and that they are going to change it.
	The Government have come up with some of the most ludicrous excuses for changing the system. They talk about the confusion that arises, they say, when someone loses an election to a constituency but still manages to win in a region. No one has ever complained to me about that electoral process in any of the many surgeries that I have held. However, let us take that criticism head-on. It would still be perfectly possible for any of us to stand as a councillor in any ward in our constituencies. Plenty of wards in my Monmouthshire constituency vote Labour, and I probably would not get elected if I stood as a councillor in any of them. However, I would still represent those wards as their Member of Parliament.
	The Government have failed to realise that we are talking about two separate legal elections: one for the constituency seat and one for the region. There is no cause for confusion if someone loses the contest for the constituency but goes on to win a seat as a regional Member. There is no evidence of any such confusion, except that of the Bevan foundationwhich is very independent, I am sure; it was set up a few years ago by some Labour party memberswhich was cited by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David).
	The other non-existent problem that has been mooted as a reason for the change in the system is that regional Assembly Members might tout for business. However, if constituency Assembly Members are doing their job properly, they should have absolutely nothing to fear in that regard. It has certainly been my experience as a constituency Assembly Member that the first person to whom a constituent will go with a problem is their Member of Parliament, regardless of the problem and of who should deal with it. The second person they go to is their constituency Assembly Member. In fact, most people are unaware of who their regional list Members are, which is a matter that those Members might want to address. There is no reason for any constituency Assembly Member to be concerned about an office opening up in their constituency; if they have been doing their job properly, they will have nothing to worry about. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, a little bit of competition does us all good.

Mark Tami: If we take the hon. Gentleman's argument at face value, and accept that no one brings any work to the list Assembly Members, why do we give them an office in the first place?

David Davies: Perhaps that question ought to have been addressed to the Secretary of State for Wales. I believe that a lot of regional Assembly Members work extremely hard. There are others about whom I am not quite so certain, but I am not going to name names.
	I have already told the Committee what I think about the proportional representation system in general. It is regrettable in the extreme that Labour wants to use its majority to tinker with that system and to change it in a way that will give it an electoral benefit. Of course that will be the result, because, by and large, the only people who get elected to the regions are members of the smaller partiespeople who are not members of the Labour party. Any change that will affect the regional list candidates will be bad news for the smaller parties. That is really why the Secretary of State is so determined to introduce this change.
	Labour Members keep talking about the Electoral Reform Society. I am not sure whether they are confused and do not know the difference between the Electoral Reform Society and the independent Electoral Commission. I started off thinking it was just ignorance that led them to confuse the two organisations, but I am now starting to think that they are deliberately referring to the Electoral Reform Society because they are embarrassed about the fact that the Electoral Commission gave such damning evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and said, more or less, that the change was being made purely out of political partisanship.
	I have already said that I do not like the proportional representation system. The Secretary of State for Wales does not like it, and a few years ago he published a good book entitled Proportional Misrepresentation: The Case Against PR in Britain. I wish he had acted on that book before he set up the current system, but that is another problem.
	This change is driven purely by political expediency. It is a nasty, devious, partisan bit of gerrymandering. If the Labour party does not like the PR system, it should simply say so. Labour Members should move an amendment calling for the PR system to be abolished in respect of the Welsh Assembly and for a return to a first-past-the-post system. They would be surprised where they received support from.

Mark Tami: I would support the hon. Gentleman on such a measure, but we are not proposing that. Does he agree that, if we were, we might be open to the allegation he is making, because such a system would probably deliver a large majority for the Labour party? We have put in place a system that virtually guarantees seats for the opposition parties.

David Davies: The system to which Labour Members are thinking of changing will continue to guarantee seats for the opposition parties. One problem is[Interruption.] Let me finish the point. The change that Labour Members are talking about making will not reduce the numbers from other parties, but it will mean that some candidates lose their seats. Labour Members know full well that it is causing problems for opposition parties. If they think it is not causing problems, they should withdraw that change and allow us to have a political system that all Members of all political parties could support. The changes they are proposing are dishonourable.
	I call on Labour Members to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they want to use their large majority to make changes to an electoral system that no independent body supports and which they know are for pure party-political advantage. I urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Adam Price: Perhaps even the Secretary of State would privately accept that the sight of a majority[Interruption.] I have not finished yet. This is not exactly the Government's finest hour, as they are pushing through proposals opposed by every other political party at a time of falling participation in politics. There are accusations of abuse and fraud and of gerrymandering. That undermines public trust in politics. What happened to the new, inclusive politics, which was meant to be part of the change in the political culture that the right hon. Gentleman and I were working to create?
	For the avoidance of doubt, as accusations of misuse of funds and so on have been made by hon. Members, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) should confirm that he did not use his parliamentary allowance for the research, which I have read. It has to be said that it was based on a sample of 47, which is minuscule, and two sets of three people were involved. I am not sure what the quorum is for a Labour party focus group these days, but surely three at a coffee morning in Llanelli does not constitute consulting the people of Wales.

Wayne David: rose

Adam Price: I am under instruction from the Government Whips not to take any interventions, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I cannot allow him to get away with that blatant misrepresentation. As I said, and as he would know if he had been listening carefully, there were focus groups in three parliamentary constituencies. I certainly accept that 47 is a small number, but it is indicative. I challenge Opposition Members to bring together their own groups to see whether other people have similar views.

Adam Price: Let us look at the results, because the hon. Gentleman was slightly economical in the quotes that he gave. The executive summary to his report says:
	We found slightly more of the total number of respondents
	that huge figure of 47, including five don't-knows
	said that dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both.
	Even on a sample of 47, it was a fairly close thing.
	What does the report conclude? It says:
	This suggests that any proposals about dual candidacywhether to change or retain the current systemneed to be based on sound evidence and be mindful of differing views amongst the public.
	The report points out that there is no evidence for the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Caerphilly quoted some of the focus groups, so let me quote some of the respondents. Someone from his constituency who was in favour of dual candidacy said that it meant that the power was spread out, which could make more of a difference in the end. Someone else in Caerphilly said that candidates should be free to stand in both ballots, and that that seemed fair enough. Perhaps he should listen to the views of some of the people of Wales. They are waiting for the evidence.
	The problem with the proposals, which are perceived to be partisan, is that they undermine public trust in politics at a time of falling participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the enacting of the European convention on human rights. He is right to point to that, because article 3 of protocol 1 sets out the right to free and fair elections, which every member state, including the United Kingdom, through the Human Rights Act, has agreed to enact. There is substantial jurisprudence by the European Court of Human Rights in this area. The UK Government's record is very poor on the right to free and fair elections. They lost a case on article 3 of protocol 1 in relation to Gibraltar, about which the Secretary of State will know something. They also lost a case recently in relation to the right to vote for prisoners. The Government's record is therefore poor on the right to vote.
	There is also substantial jurisprudence on the right to stand. The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that member states cannot set eligibility criteria that curtail the basic right of free and fair elections. They cannot deprive people of that basic right. As the Arbuthnott report makes clear, people have the right freely to choose their candidates.
	If the Government do not see sense on the issue, I am certain that they will be challenged, and we will have the unfortunate position of the Government having to defend these iniquitous proposals before the European Court of Human Rights. The proposals are disproportionate. I believe that there is substantial evidence that their aim is partisan and illegitimate and that they will be struck down by the European Court. Surely it is shameful that the Government introduced the proposals in the first place. They demean the political culture that we were trying to createa fair political culture, working together for the benefit of the people of Wales.

David Jones: I wish to add my voice to the chorus of condemnation of the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that what is proposed is a shabby and dishonourable measure that ought to be criticised by Members on both sides of the House.
	The Government suggest in their White Paper that the current arrangement, whereby, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) puts its, losers can become winners,
	devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections.
	I suggest that it is not that aspect of the matter that acts as a disincentive but the Byzantine complexity of the system put in place by the Labour party. The system is complex and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, that is the system that the Government put in place in 1998.
	It was always perfectly foreseeable, and an inherent part of the system, that there would be constituencies in which more than one candidate would be returned to the Assembly, whether though first-past-the-post or the regional list system. If the Government did not realise that from the outset, they were pretty short-sighted.
	My constituency, Clwyd, West, is constantly cited. Four of the five candidates were elected to the Assembly, one under first-past-the-post and the others through the regional list. Again, that was always foreseeable. It was an extreme example and an extreme conclusion. The hon. Member for Caerphilly laughs about that, but the Government put that system in place. It is a bit rich, a few years on, for the Government to start moaning about it and suggesting that they never foresaw it. It is rather facile to suggest that this is resulting in some kind of disengagement on the part of the electorate, especially given that none of the witnesses who appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee supported that view, and the Committee's conclusion had to be based on
	informal feedback from the public.
	It is nonsense. There was a huge weight of evidence against the Secretary of State's proposal, but he is ignoring it completely.
	The Secretary of State has also suggested that there is some form of systematic abuse of the system.

Peter Hain: That is right.

David Jones: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Leanne Wood memo must have come as manna from heaven to him. Apart from the memo, what evidence has he of that so-called systematic abuse? We heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that people in his constituency were representing themselves as the Member for Rhondda. No names have been produced, and we have had no evidence relating to any other individualapart from the hapless Leanne Wood, who, as I have said, came as manna from heaven to the Secretary of State.
	We are seeing a shabby attempt to gerrymander the electoral system to the advantage of the Labour party. Labour Members know that, as does every Opposition Member. The Secretary of State should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. He laughs. I do not know whether they play conkers in South Africa, but if they do, I bet the right hon. Gentleman was the sort of little boy who pickled his conkers before playing.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no reference whatsoever to that in the amendment.

David Jones: The fact is that this is an attempt at gerrymandering, which does not belong in the House of Commons or in the Welsh Assembly. The Labour party should be thoroughly ashamed of itself, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Alex Salmond: Notwithstanding what I thought was a brilliantly deadpan and ironic speech from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), the highlight of the debate came 40 minutes ago when the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) came into the Chamber, realised that he was about to be endorsed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), and promptly turned on his heel and returned to the safety of the Members Lobby.
	This has been an extremely enjoyable debate. I intrude on it because I believe that there is a Scottish dimension. I was fogbound at Dundee airport this morning and thought that I would miss the start of the debate, although I recognised the ability of my Welsh colleagues to spin it out through the afternoon. I have sat patiently, wanting to contribute whatever wisdom I can from a Scottish perspective.
	The fog at Dundee airport was as nothing compared to the red haze that has descended and clouded the judgment of the Secretary of State for Wales and one or two Scottish Back Benchers. They have dressed up a clear case of gerrymanderingor, as we must now call it, conker-picklingon the Secretary of State's part, claiming that it is to everyone's advantage and has absolutely nothing to do with the poor, pathetic stories of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about Members opening offices in his constituency and pretending to be politicians. The poor, sensitive flower among Welsh Labour Members! Ah, I see that the tender flower has returned. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Alex Salmond: Those are cheers.
	I am in favour of the additional member system, although I have been elected six times by means of the first past the post system, with a swing towards the SNP at every election. On the last four occasions, I was elected by an absolute majority of the votes cast.
	I make that point because I think that people who start talking about electoral losers in list systems should start to look at the strength of their own political mandates. I am glad to see present in the Chamber the ringleader of those who want to foist the gerrymandering that is happening in Wales on Scotland. The new hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has been in the House a matter ofoh10 weeks, and with that enormous parliamentary experience has chosen not to represent his constituents who are desperately worried about the withdrawal of fire services

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the amendments under discussion, which are apropos of Wales, not Scotland?

Alex Salmond: I am pointing out, Mrs. Heal, that those who argue that list members are failures should consider the strength or otherwise of their own electoral mandates. The hon. Member for Livingston received 41.79 per cent. of the vote, which was only 16 per cent. of the total electorate of Livingston. Some 84 per cent.

Mark Tami: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. This speech does not appear to cover any of the matters that we should be covering. It seems to refer totally to some matter in Scotland.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have already ruled that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) must confine his remarks to the amendment to the Government of Wales Bill.

Alex Salmond: Yes, and that is exactly what I am doing, always, as I do, taking your advice, Mrs. Heal. It is interesting that Labour party members who are prepared to dish out gerrymandering to the other parties in Wales cannot take a bit of debate in the Chamber. What sort of attitude is that? If I had been elected by a mere 16 per cent. of the electorate in Banff

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once again to move on and to address the amendment under discussion.

Alex Salmond: The amendment is about the strength or otherwise of electoral mandates. As we have been discussing all evening, the Arbuthnott report on the situation in Scotland said clearly, on the Government's proposals:
	The Commission believes that preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic.
	Having looked at the Welsh example, it suggested that the motivation was to preserve one-party hegemony. When we hear Labour Members argue that it is actually for the general good and the health of democracy, we should remember that the commission that studied the matter saw a different motivation.
	Who are the Arbuthnott commission to rule on these matters? Were they hand-picked by the Conservatives, or by Plaid Cymru or by the Liberals? They were hand-picked by the Secretary of State for Scotland. They were described recently by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as
	a serious commission carrying forward a serious piece of work on our behalf. It is composed of extremely high-calibre individuals who have made outstanding contributions to public life . . . over many years. They are going about the task that we gave them with exemplary thoroughness and integrity.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 November 2005; Vol. 2043, c. 105WH.]
	Oh, but that the Secretary of State for Wales had taken the advice of people of similar integrity. The Secretary of State for Walesthe part-time Secretary of State for Walestold us in his press release that he had information

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would remember Erskine May and continue his contribution to the debate in a more orderly manner.

Alex Salmond: I am continuing in a perfectly orderly manner, Mrs. Heal. I am pointing out that the Secretary of State for Wales is on the record as saying he had information that Sir John Arbuthnott would have taken a different view if he had known of the malpractices that were taking place in Wales. He has yet to tell usno doubt he will do so when he sums uphow he came to that conclusion. Had he spoken to Sir John Arbuthnott? The Arbuthnott commission quotes extensively from the evidence given on Wales, all of it against the Secretary of State's position, in coming to its conclusion that to rule out dual candidacy would be undemocratic and a protection of the hegemony of one political party. I hear a Front Bencher suggesting, from a sedentary positionyou obviously did not hear it, Mrs. Healthat that is not true. In what aspect is it not true that that is what the Arbuthnott commission concluded

Nia Griffith: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that our party is likely to lose out from these proposals? I know many of our candidates in marginal seats who will be at risk if they are not allowed to stand for the list seats as well as for constituencies. Can the hon. Gentleman explain, with reference to Wales, how he can accuse us of making a partisan decision in such circumstances?

Alex Salmond: If the hon. Lady had been paying attention to the debate, she would have heard the reason. The Labour party can do whatever it likes in Wales. No one on this side of the Chamber is suggesting to the Labour party that it impose restrictions on its candidates. That is not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is the arrogance and contempt for democracy of a party that believes that it can legislate to put unfair restrictions on the candidates of other parties, just in case they inconveniently open up a political office in one or other constituency.
	Has the abstinence from dual candidacy been the normal practice of the Labour party across these islands? I have been looking at the Labour list for the Glasgow constituency in 1999[Interruption.] At the head of the list is Donald Dewar. Was he standing on that list because he was frightened that he would not win in Anniesland or Garscadden? Or was he pursuing a legitimate option to rally support for the Labour party in Glasgow by standing on the list? Nor was it just in the first election for the Scottish Parliament that the Labour party tried that particular trick.

Jim Devine: I know that the hon. Gentleman's party was not part of the convention, because it stayed out of the tent with its friends in the Tory party. Donald Dewar led the Labour party, other political parties, trade unions and Churches into the Scottish convention, which agreed that the list MSPs would have the same status but a distinctive role of overview on what was happening in the regions. The hon. Gentleman must agree that that never happened.

Alex Salmond: Well, why on earth did the late Donald Dewar put himself at the top of the Glasgow list? [Interruption.] Why on earth is the Labour party trying to change the situation now, especiallyas we have heardamong the casualties would be the Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, who came third in the constituency[Interruption.] of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

Wayne David: On a point of order, Sir Michael. This is an amendment to the Government of Wales Bill and it has nothing to do with Scotland. I ask you to rule on that point. [Interruption.]

Michael Lord: Order. Such matters may be safely left to the Chair. It would greatly help the hon. Gentleman's contribution if Labour Members did not keep intervening from sedentary positions.

Alex Salmond: Thank you very much, Sir Michael. I was about to point out that among the casualties of this ridiculous proposal, if the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) had his way and it was applied in Scotland, would be the Scottish Minister for Education and Young People, who has achieved the remarkable distinction of being even more unpopular in Scotland than the English Secretary of State for Education and Skills is in England.
	The Labour party says one thing and does another. The real problem for the Secretary of State for Wales is that he does not like the idea that other parties might pursue politics in what he regards as a Labour party fiefdom. He should remember that in liberal democracy it is not common for Governments to change the electoral system without a consensus across the political parties. It was common in the states of eastern Europe, when they were still under totalitarian dictatorship. The manipulation of electoral systems is also common in the third world. We should have left such blatant electoral manipulation far behind. That essential point of democracy applies whether or not it is in Wales or Scotland.

Peter Hain: A number of Members have described the Committee stages of the Bill as boring. It has been anything but that. We have been united in being exciting this evening, but I have not heard such a farrago of fantasy from Opposition Members in a long time. Why? Because they want a special law for particular categories of candidate. They want people who have been rejected by the electorate to winto have two bites at the cherry. People rejected by the voters could become winners. That point is at the heart of the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No, I have only a limited amount of time to respond to the debate, so I need to answer the points that were made.
	We should start with the facts. Interestingly, the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals for preventing a ban on dual candidature. That is fact No. 1.
	The second fact is that, yes, I was one of the Ministers responsible for bringing in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and thus the electoral system. I never imagined, and could not have anticipated, the widespread and systematic abuse that has subsequently occurred. It has undoubtedly occurred. We have heard the evidence, some of which I shall cite, from many Members this evening, on Second Reading and in questions. This is a matter not of party politics, but of ensuring that we have a system of integrity in the National Assembly for Wales.
	Thirdly, the ban on dual candidacy was a manifesto commitment. That is an important point. Are Opposition Members inciting the House of Lords to breach the Salisbury convention on manifesto commitments? The manifesto commitment was that
	we will prevent candidates from standing on both the list and in a constituency in order to make all candidates genuinely accountable to the electorate and to end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by the voters.
	That is a clear manifesto commitment and we won convincingly in Wales, as we did elsewhere in the country.
	The amendments would not only reinstate the status quo with regard to dual candidacy but also, in the case of amendments Nos. 52 and 10, go beyond that by removing restrictions that already exist in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and have not been challenged or subject to serious consideration.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) questioned whether the measure complies with the European convention on human rights in terms of free and fair elections. I am absolutely satisfied that the measure is compliant. He made the specious claim that we are preventing electors from having the right to choose candidates. On the contrary: we are insisting that electors should have the right to choose the candidate they want. Those candidates when elected should stay elected and not be subject to defeated candidates popping in through the back door.
	Far from being partisan, the proposals in clause 7 to prevent candidates from standing both in a constituency and on a regional list will strengthen the integrity of the system, and the legitimacy of regional Assembly Members. They put voters in chargean important pointby enabling them to reject a candidate who can currently get in through the back door despite being rejected by the voters.
	The ban on dual candidacy will end confusion with respect to the Assembly's current electoral system, especially following the Assembly election in the Clwyd, West constituency in 2003, when three of the four losing candidates, who were kicked out by the electorate, became AMs as additional Members elected from their parties' regional lists. As Members have noted, that practice resulted in 15 of 20 list AMs setting up in the constituencies where they were defeated to target them next time.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said that our changes would not prevent that from happening, but actually the Bill's provisions will prevent it. Furthermore, subsection (6) of clause 36, which covers the code of conduct that will be established and the Standing Orders to be considered by the Assembly, will impose the necessary restrictions. If we were in any doubt as to the need for them, we have only to look at the way that Leanne Wood, a Plaid Cymru Assembly Member on the list system, was caught red-handed advocating just such systematic abuse, which taxpayers would not stand for if they knew that it was occurring.
	Voters do not understand how defeated constituency candidates can be elected through the backdoor on their party's regional list. The new provision will restore voters' democratic right to reject a constituency candidate, as well as to elect one. The current system undermines

Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Sir Michael. The Secretary of State has restated the matter of Leanne Wood. As a matter of record, she was fully exonerated by the appropriate Assembly Committee, and such a ruling was made by Mr. Speaker when the right hon. Gentleman tried to say such things last time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair at this point.

Peter Hain: I have limited time, and I need to make progress so that the Opposition have an opportunity to reply to the debate.
	These proposals would affect all parties equally, not least the six Labour Assembly Members with tiny majorities. In one case, a dozen votes could go the other way and deprive the Member of a seat. They will be prevented from standing for election on the list.
	Criticism of dual candidacy has come not just from the Labour party, but from right across the political spectrum. The respected Welsh academic, Denis Balsom said:
	Candidates use the list as an insurance against failing to win a constituency contest. This dual candidacy can also confuse the electorate, who may wish to consciously reject a particular candidate only to find them elected via the list. It should remain a basic democratic right not to elect a particular candidate or to be able to vote a member out.
	I completely agree with him. Evidence has come from academics across the field and from Canada, New Zealand and Japan. More recently, research by the independent Bevan Foundation on public attitudes to duel candidacy in Wales has concluded that there is indeed considerable public disquiet about the issue. Whatever questions may be directed at people in focus groups and so on, that is the only independent research conducted in Wales.
	Amendment No. 52, which Opposition Members support, would take us backwards. The Government of Wales Act 1998 already provides that candidates who are on a regional list may not stand for a constituency in a different region. People who lose should not then be allowed to stand for election on the list. The Opposition now propose that those people could lose in south Wales and pop up in north Wales. What sort of system is that?
	Lord Richard, the chairman of the commission, has backed the Government's policy on the matter. Lord Steel, the former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliamentwe have heard lots about Scotland this evening, even though this is a debate on Waleshas also supported the Government's policy in this respect. To illustrate the cross-party concern about the issue, I want to put on record a number of other quotes. Lord Carlile, a former leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, said:
	I am sure that many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity.
	Lord Crickhowell, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, said:
	The present arrangements are really pretty indefensible.[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 121617.]
	Glyn Erasmus, Plaid Cymru regional co-ordinator, said in a letter to The Western Mail on 17 December 2005:
	with the vast majority of regional list seats being taken up with constituency candidates there is a blockage that excludes other people from coming to prominence. This means that the 'elite' of a party protect their own elitism by preventing others from gaining a personal profile . . . To finalise with a personal observation, 'two bites at the cherry' and 'having your cake and eating it' are both universally recognised as symptomatic of selfishness.
	Finally, just for completeness, let me give another quote. Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative Association said:
	We agree to the proposals to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and being eligible for election from party lists.
	That is the only consultation response that we received from any Conservative in respect of Better Governance for Waleslong may those involved continue to have such wisdom.
	I conclude with a few final points. We have heard a whole series of specious arguments in the debate this evening and in the debate in Wales. First, we heard that the proposalregrettably this point was repeated by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs.   Gillan)could affect the quality of candidates. We have the proposition that bright high-quality candidates actually need two bites at the cherry. These bright candidates in all the opposition parties are so worried about being defeated by the electorates in the constituencies where they stand that they want an insurance policy, an each-way bet and a lifebelt. It is a funny sort of brightness that has no respect for democracy and no respect for the verdicts of the people.
	What are the opposition parties afraid of? What are Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats united in this unholy coalition to seek to defeat the Government on this matter afraid of? I submit that they are afraid of the voters, because what this proposal does and what the Government are seeking to do is put the voters, and not the parties, in charge. It says that if a candidate is defeated in a constituency, that candidate should not pop up on a list as has been happening right the way through. This will affect the Labour party equally, and some may say disproportionately worse than the other parties. It is not a question of party bias.
	There have been charges of gerrymandering, which is a very serious charge to make. Gerrymandering comes from the process of rigging constituencies and rigging election systems for a particular party to gain party advantage. There is no way at all that any party can gain party advantage from this. Not one seat will change hands. Either a party will win a constituency or it will not. Whether the party wins or not will determine the number of party representatives on the list seat. Banning candidates from standing in both categories does not affect the party outcome at all. It does not affect it by one seat; it does not affect it by one iota. This is another of the specious attacks on the Bill.
	If there has been gerrymandering, it has been by those list Members abusing their position and abusing their Assembly allowancesI think the Assembly ought to address this matterto set up constituency offices in target seats deliberately to target the Members who beat them the last time. That is an abuse of democracy and one of the reasons why the Government will fight to the very endand the House of Lords ought to respect our manifesto commitment and the Salisbury conventionto have a clean system in the Welsh Assembly elections and to make sure that the voters are in charge once and for all instead of the parties manipulating the system for their own advantage.

Cheryl Gillan: Rarely have I heard such a load of rubbish from a Secretary of State. No wonder he did not take very long to reply to the debatehe had very few good points to make.
	The confusion that the Secretary of State says is suffered by the electorate is no such thing. The only confusion that we are seeing is confusion by the Government. They have found themselves with Labour Members facing a problem that has now been identified as the Leanne Wood problem. To deal with that, the Labour party has taken the heavy-handed approach and decided to change the electoral system in Wales.
	Throughout this debate, we have asked for evidence of the confusion experienced by the electorate and the only evidence that the Secretary of State can give us is a quote from something from the, in his view, independent Bevan Foundation. That research has not been made available to any Members of the House and, when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) introduced it, he did not even say who had commissioned it, who had paid for it and when it would be available to Members.

Wayne David: rose

Cheryl Gillan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can answer the questions that he failed to answer when I intervened on him earlier.

Wayne David: The hon. Lady can have a copy immediately. It is in the British Library and the National Library of Wales; it is widely available. The foundation is entirely independent and it is an entirely independent report. Independence obviously hurts the hon. Lady.

Cheryl Gillan: Who paid for the report?

Wayne David: It was paid for by Members.

Cheryl Gillan: There we have itan entirely independent report was paid for by Labour Members.

Alex Salmond: I will be brief because I do not want to interrupt this. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) says, Members, does he mean Members' allowances? What aspect of the word Members does he mean?

Wayne David: rose

Cheryl Gillan: I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Caerphilly if he would like to answer that question.

Wayne David: Absolutely. I am more than happy to give transparency to hon. Members. The matter has been cleared by the House authorities. The report is independent. It was commissioned from an independent foundationit is independent research.

Cheryl Gillan: I think that we have established that we are talking about a Labour party report that was commissioned by Labour Membersit is not independent at all. Although we have heard anecdotal allusions to people wishing to change the electoral system, not one scrap of evidence has been put forward.

Adam Price: Does not the hon. Lady find it absolutely astonishing that although we have heard repeated accusations from Labour Members about the abuse of position of an Assembly Member, we find that a Labour Member is using his parliamentary allowancetaxpayers' moneyfor a report that is clearly to the advantage of the party that he represents?

Cheryl Gillan: rose

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Lady would return more directly to the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I will try to be helpful to the Chair, but I think that the intervention made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) is worthy of further scrutiny. Hon. Members have been flinging rather dangerous allegations around the Chamber and effectively accusing Assembly Members of abusing their allowances. If Assembly Members have abused their allowances, that is a matter for the Assembly and its Standing Orders. Such abuses should be catalogued and brought before the proper authorities. I am not entirely sure how the allowances of the hon. Member for Caerphilly are used, but there will be an opportunity

Wayne David: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Serious accusations are being made on the Floor of the House. I want to state absolutely categorically that such accusations are deplorable. The report was an independent piece of research that was commissioned from an independent research institute

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair; it is more a matter for debate.

Cheryl Gillan: Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much, Sir Michael, but it will be interesting to find out exactly who paid for the research, as I am sure that we will eventually.
	I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long because we have had a long debate on the amendment. To be quite frank, I would be ashamed to be bringing forward such a proposal if I were Secretary of State for Wales. It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is a party political move by the Labour party on behalf of Labour politicians, who have certainly had it all their own way, but now cannot face the competition. It is clear that there has been no demand for such a measure because otherwise evidence would have been put before the Committee, or at least placed in the Library. No other party in the House or the Assembly has demanded a change to the electoral arrangements. Most leading commentatorscertainly the Electoral Commissionand many academics have spoken out clearly against the measure.
	There is no doubt that the Secretary of State is putting forward a grubby little measure. He has not even had the decency to discuss it with the Presiding Officer of the Assembly. I wanted to discover how well and even-handedly the Secretary of State had consulted people in the Welsh Assembly, so I read the evidence that the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 31 October 2005. When he was asked whether the White Paper represented the Assembly's view, he said:
	We did not, for example, discuss questions surrounding changes in election rules, or preventing Members from standing for election.
	The Secretary of State did not even bother to discuss the matter with the Presiding Officer and I understand from the evidence given by the Presiding Officer that he did not discuss it with the Assembly parliamentary service, either. The Presiding Officer said:
	As I understand it, there has been very little consultation with officials working with us, and with colleagues who are committee clerks and part of the parliamentary service . . . It is also a cause for concern for me that the bill has not come to us as a draft bill.

Peter Hain: rose

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State wants me to give wayand I am sure that he has discussed the subject with the Presiding Officer since that was reported on 31 October. However, it remains the case that there has been no proper consultation, of which hon. Members have seen any evidence, with the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady is making an important point, so just for the record, may I say that I have discussed this matter with the Presiding Officer on a number of occasions over a number of months? It has been a live policy for a very long time.

Cheryl Gillan: In that case, the Select Committee evidence from 31 October 2005 must be incorrect. I expect that the Secretary of State will be speaking to Hansard to get the transcript altered, because that is all down in black and white at paragraphs 145 and 146 of the evidence.
	As I have said, we have before us a grubby proposal that is not supported by the voters or by any party except the Minister's own, nor by any leading group of independent academics. The only people who say that they can stand the policy up are those who produced a piece of party-bought research. I invite Opposition Members, as well as any other Members from Wales who have respect for the people of Wales, to stop this gerrymandering and vote for our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after Ten o'clock, The Second Deputy Chairman put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [9 January].
	Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 8 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clauses 28 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3
	  
	Transfer etc. of Functions: Further Provisions

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 103, line 14, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 221, in page 103, line 19, at end insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 222, in page 103, line 23, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 223, in page 103, line 39, at end insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 224, in page 103, line 43, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 225, in page 104, line 14, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 226, in page 104, line 26, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 227, in page 104, line 34, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 228, in page 104, line 35, at end insert
	'Laying of reports and statements
	9A (1) This paragraph applies where
	(a)   a function to make or receive a report or statement (including a function conferred or imposed by or by virtue of an Act passed after this Act) is transferred to, or made exercisable by, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General by an Order in Council under section 58, and
	(b)   immediately before the coming into force of the provisions of the Order in Council relating to the function, and enactment made provision (provision for Parliamentary laying) for a report or statement made or received in the exercise of the function to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament by the person making or receiving it.
	(2)   The provision for Parliamentary laying applies to the exercise of the function by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General as if it required the report or statement to be laid before the Assembly instead of before Parliament or either House of Parliament.
	(3)   In this paragraph references to a report or statement include any other document (except one containing subordinate legislation).'.
	No. 229, in page 105, leave out lines 30 to 35. [Nick Ainger.]
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 59 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83
	  
	Different Exercise of Functions by Welsh Ministers etc.

Amendments made: No. 230, in page 46, line 3, leave out
	'an Order in Council under section 58.'
	and insert
	'or by virtue of this Act.'.
	No. 231, in page 46, line 12, leave out 'any provision made by'.
	No. 232, in page 46, line 15, leave out
	'the Order in Council by'
	and insert
	'any provision by or by virtue of'.
	No. 233, in page 46, line 19, leave out from 'where' to the end of line 23 and insert
	'this section does not apply.'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85
	  
	Construction of References to Ministers and Departments

Amendments made: No. 234, in page 47, line 3, at end insert
	'(aa)   the report or statement is not one which, by or by virtue of this Act, is to be made by or given to the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister, the Counsel General or the Assembly Commission, and'.
	No. 235, in page 47, line 4, leave out 'exclusively'.
	No. 236, in page 47, line 6, leave out from 'Minister' to the end of line 9 and insert
	', the Counsel General or the Assembly Commission.'.
	No. 237, in page 47, line 19, leave out from 'legislation)' to ', and' in line 21.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clauses 88 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 116 to 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124
	  
	Annual Budget Motions

Amendment made: No. 238, in page 66, line 36, leave out 'approving' and insert 'authorising'. [Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125
	  
	Supplementary Budget Motions

Amendment made: No. 239, in page 67, line 22, leave out from 'motions' to end of line 36 and insert
	'(referred to in this Act as a supplementary Budget motion) for either or both of the purposes specified in subsections (2) and (2A).
	(2)   A supplementary Budget motion may approve a variation in any one or more of the following
	(a)   the amount of resources authorised to be used in the financial year by a relevant person, or pursuant to a relevant enactment, for any service or purpose,
	(b)   the amount of resources accruing to a relevant person in the financial year and authorised to be retained by that person to be used for any service or purpose, and
	(c)   the amount authorised to be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the financial year to a relevant person, or for use pursuant to a relevant enactment, for any service or purpose.
	(2A)   A supplementary Budget motion may authorise any one or more of the following
	(a)   the amount of resources which may be used in the financial year by a relevant person, or pursuant to a relevant enactment, for a service or purpose specified in the motion,
	(b)   the amount of resources accruing to a relevant person in the financial year which may be retained by that person to be used for a service or purpose so specified, and
	(c)   the amount which may be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the financial year to a relevant person, or for use pursuant to a relevant enactment, for a service or purpose so specified.'.
	'(referred to in this Act as a supplementary Budget motion) for either or both of the purposes specified in subsections (2) and (2A).
	(2)   A supplementary Budget motion may approve a variation in any one or more of the following
	(a)   the amount of resources authorised to be used in the financial year by a relevant person, or pursuant to a relevant enactment, for any service or purpose,
	(b)   the amount of resources accruing to a relevant person in the financial year and authorised to be retained by that person to be used for any service or purpose, and
	(c)   the amount authorised to be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the financial year to a relevant person, or for use pursuant to a relevant enactment, for any service or purpose.
	(2A)   A supplementary Budget motion may authorise any one or more of the following
	(a)   the amount of resources which may be used in the financial year by a relevant person, or pursuant to a relevant enactment, for a service or purpose specified in the motion,
	(b)   the amount of resources accruing to a relevant person in the financial year which may be retained by that person to be used for a service or purpose so specified, and
	(c)   the amount which may be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the financial year to a relevant person, or for use pursuant to a relevant enactment, for a service or purpose so specified.'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 125, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127
	  
	Contingencies

Amendments made: No. 240, in page 68, line 24, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.
	No. 241, in page 68, line 27, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.
	No. 242, in page 68, line 35, leave out 'approve' and insert 'authorise'.
	No. 243, in page 69, line 4, leave out 'those sections' and insert
	'virtue of sections 124 and 125'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130
	  
	Welsh Ministers' Accounts

Amendments made: No. 253, in page 70, line 14, at end insert
	'(1A)   The accounts must include details of the financial affairs and transactions of the Counsel General.'.
	No. 254, in page 70, line 38, leave out 'by the Welsh Ministers'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132
	  
	Accounting Officers for Welsh Ministers

Amendments made: No. 255, in page 71, line 36, leave out
	'and finances of the Welsh Ministers'
	and insert
	'of the Welsh Ministers and the finances of the Welsh Ministers and the Counsel General'.
	No. 256, in page 72, line 1, leave out
	'and finances of the Welsh Ministers'
	and insert
	'of the Welsh Ministers and the finances of the Welsh Ministers and the Counsel General'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134
	  
	Examination into Welsh Ministers' Use of Resources

Amendments made: No. 257, in page 72, line 40, after 'Ministers' insert 'and the Counsel General'.
	No. 258, in page 72, line 43, at end insert 'or the Counsel General'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 134, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135
	  
	Examinations by Comptroller and Auditor General

Amendment made: No. 259, in page 73, line 25, at end insert 'and the Counsel General'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 135, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 136 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Clauses 145 to 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 9 agreed to.
	Clauses 149 to 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10
	  
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendment made: No. 244, in page 160, leave out line 2 and insert
	'for sub-paragraph (4) substitute
	(4)   Before laying before the Assembly with modifications an estimate submitted in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the committee or committees must
	(a)   consult the Ombudsman, and
	(b)   take into account any representations which the Ombudsman may make..'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 160 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 161
	  
	Transitional etc. Provision

Amendment made: No. 245, in page 90, line 11, at end insert
	'(3A)   A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. [Nick Ainger.]
	Clause 161, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11
	  
	Transitional Provisions

Amendments made: No. 246, in page 166, line 1, leave out
	'members of that Assembly as those members'
	and insert
	'persons who at that time held office as an Assembly Secretary and are members of that Assembly as those persons'.
	No. 247, in page 166, line 9, at end insert
	'who immediately before the beginning of the initial period held office as an Assembly Secretary'.
	No. 248, in page 167, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	No. 249, in page 178, line 12, at end insert
	'Transfers of Assembly functions: laying of reportsand statements
	33A   (1)   This paragraph applies where
	(a)   a function to make or receive a report or statement was transferred to, or made exercisable by, the Assembly constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) by an Order in Council under section 22 of that Act,
	(b)   the function has been transferred to, or made exercisable, by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister, the Counsel General or the Assembly Commission by or by virtue of paragraph 28 or 29, and
	(c)   immediately before the transfer of the function to that Assembly, any enactment made provision (provision for Parliamentary laying) for a report or statement made or received in the exercise of the function to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament by the person making or receiving it.
	(2)   The provision for Parliamentary laying applies to the exercise of the function by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister, the Counsel General or the Assembly Commission as if it required the report or statement to be laid before the Assembly instead of before Parliament or either House of Parliament.
	(3)   In this paragraph and paragraph 33B, references to a report or statement include any other document (except one containing subordinate legislation).
	33B   (1)   This paragraph applies where
	(a)   a function to make or receive a report or statement was conferred or imposed on the Assembly constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) by a pre-commencement enactment,
	(b)   the function has been transferred to the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister, the Counsel General or the Assembly Commission by or by virtue of paragraph 28 or 29, and
	(c)   immediately before the transfer, any enactment made provision for a report or statement made or received in the exercise of the function (or the matter contained in such a report or statement) to be published by that Assembly.
	(2)   A copy of the report or statement must be laid before the Assembly after it has been made or received.'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12
	  
	Repeals and Revocations

Amendment made: No. 250, in page 193, line 33, leave out from 'paragraph' to end of line 35 and insert
	'15(3), the words to it.'.[Nick Ainger.]
	Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 163 to 165 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Sir Michael. You have spent the past six minutes reading out a raft of clauses and amendments that the House has not had the opportunity to consider. I calculate that a full Committee of the House has been unable to scrutinise some 133 clauses. I would like you to advise me, Sir Michael, on whether there is anything that I can do about it, given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised the matter with the Leader of the House last Thursday during business questions and requested extra time for the Committee stage. The Leader of the House failed even to acknowledge her request. Is it right for the people of Wales to be so badly ignored by the House and the Government? Is it right that 133 clauses, including the extremely complex financial provisions, should not be scrutinised? It is a disgrace. The Government have let the people of Wales down. Is there anything that we can do to extend the Committee stage?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair at this juncture. The House has already decided those matters. There is nothing that I, personally, as the Chair this evening, can do about it.

Peter Hain: On a point of order, Sir Michael.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is not connected to the point of order that I have just dealt with.

Peter Hain: Well, it is

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have dealt with that point of order and the House must now move on.
	Bill, as amended in the Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 31st January, proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to pensions may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until Ten o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.[Tom Watson.]

PETITION
	  
	IsItFair Campaign

Andrew Pelling: I present a petition on behalf of the IsItFair council tax campaign, on this occasion sponsored by the Monks Orchard residents' association in my constituency.
	The petition declares:
	That the year-on-year above-inflation increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay: further, that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income, such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	To lie upon the Table.

DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS (FYLDE COAST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Ben Wallace: I am relieved to have been called for this debate, because it is certainly timely that the constituents of Lancaster and Wyre should be given answers as to their fate if they work in the Department for Work and Pensions across the Fylde coast. The Fylde coast has a number of DWP sites, including Norcross in my constituency, Peel Park, Warbreck in Blackpool, and Lytham St. Annes. I also have numerous constituents who work at the Department's Preston Dock site.
	To date, there have been 169 redeployments off site from Norcross, and 56 on site. According to the Public and Commercial Services union, some 800 jobs have already gone as a result of the current review. The job losses are planned not in a consistent and strategic way but in a haphazard way. My experience, after visiting the site, was that a number of civil servants had been told that, as part of the review of manning levels in the Department, their service had been centralised. The Pension Service is an example of that. Those civil servants had been removed from their former role and redeployed on site, perhaps to the Jobcentre Plus service. Having been there for a short time, they were then told by Jobcentre Plus that it was embarking on job cuts, and that they would either be redeployed again off site, or be told to wait until another agency of the Department had decided how to reconfigure the service. All this sounds rather farcical, and it is certainly not good for the civil servants, who want to know where their future lies.

Mark Lancaster: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that many of these changes seem to be a result not of planning but of events? For example, as the crisis in the Child Support Agency appears to increase, more people have been put into jobs to deal with it, and cuts are having to be made elsewhere; in my hon. Friend's constituency, for example.

Ben Wallace: That is absolutely true. The Gershon review of manning levels is driven not only by financial pressure, efficiency savings and service reconfiguration, but by events. As we have seen, the disastrous CSA is now taking up the headlines and often, therefore, the job redeployment, at the expense of another part of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	The way in which people are shuffled around the different agencies shows that the Department does not seem to have a grip on the problem. I mentioned earlier that the off-site and on-site redeployment sounded farcical, but it has happened to dozens of my constituents. I am sad to report that, tomorrow, it will be made public that a further 77 employees have been told that they are surplus to requirements. Many of them have already been juggled between one agency to another. That is hardly the way to handle change management, in either the public sector or the private sector. It is certainly not the way to treat civil servants who have served the Department well, and who have handled many changes under this Government and the previous Conservative Government. The Government owe them a duty to ensure that this change is managed.
	My last visit to the Norcross site was quite disturbing. The morale of the work force is extremely low and people do not know their future or what is around the corner. Indeed, many of the senior management are a long way off site. For example, the director of human resources is based in Sheffield. All those agencies feel left out and certainly do not feel that they are being communicated to properly.
	I hope that the Minister can give us some clear answers tonight and set out a strategy. While she might not have the full detail at her fingertips, I hope that she takes on board the concerns that the work force on the front line have expressed to me, and indeed to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I have said that she can contribute to the debate, because it is my view that as long as the cross-party consensus is there to communicate to the Minister the real feeling of the grass roots, she might take some swift and clear action.
	The Gershon review in 2004 embarked on a strong and clear strategy at high level to reduce the massive number of civil servants, some of whom have been employed since 1997, and to improve efficiency. I am not here to debate the rights and wrongs of the Gershon review or to say whether there should be cuts, but I am here to ask the Minister to ensure that those cuts and those changes are properly managed and that the strategy is communicated to everyone on the ground.

Peter Bone: rose

Ben Wallace: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
	I would like the Minister to communicate those changes because the axe fell significantly heavily on the Department for Work and Pensions, where the target is a 30,000 reduction in personnel. After the last two years, the Government have made headline figuresreducing Jobcentre Plus and reducing the Pension Servicebut little detail has been communicated either to us in the House or to the work force. I hope there is some element of correction tonight.
	It is important that the Minister takes on board the low morale of the work force and the fact that they do not really know what is happening. It was sad that the Public and Commercial Services Union had to resort to a 48-hour strike last week. That came not out of greed or a desire for better pay and conditions, but out of a desire for some pay and conditions and for better communication to them. I have to say that I supported members of the union at the Norcross site in that action, if only because it was a cry for help. I hope that they get some answers and are able to sleep better in their beds.
	The problem with the Gershon review, and indeed the changes, is that the drive for savings and reconfiguration has outpaced the plan for efficiency. Therefore, the cart has been put before the horse. Each agency, according to different timetables and different directorates, is putting in place its view. At the same time, the employees are trying to keep pace with the changes.
	I have only to point to the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee by Ms Strathie, the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. She explained that the call centre debacle in the summerabout 90 per cent. of customers could not get an answerwas due to the muddle between trained and temporary staff, staff off sick and redeployed staff, which affected the delivery of the service. We need to communicate the fact that if such changes are not properly made, planned in advance and communicated, there will be a hotch-potch of trained and experienced staff, as well as a pot-luck effect, that inevitably have a knock-on effect on the service received by my constituents and the whole UK. Therefore, it is vital that that be done.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing the debate. We all know what a trusty champion he is of his constituents and their interests. I pay tribute to the DWP staff on the Fylde coast. I have dealt with the disability and careers service on behalf of my constituents. It returned my call and replied to my letters. I am sad to hear that there is such distress at the proposed changes.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which shows that people who treat others well deserve to be treated well themselves. The Government have a duty of care to ensure that those people's valued service is rewarded, at least with clear strategy and communication.
	In closing, I ask that the Minister answer me at least three questions clearly and perhaps give me some undertaking. First, will she say whether the Department is considering offshoring any of the jobs or services currently being carried out by civil servants on the Fylde coast? There have been media reports to that effect, and she would go a long way towards setting people's minds at rest if she were to rule that out.
	Secondly, will the Minister review the management process with the director of human resources, or whomever is appropriate, to ensure that employees on the Fylde coast, right down to the front line, understand what is in store and do not have to be faced with surprises every few weeks?
	Finally, will the Minister meet me or come with me to her site at Norcross and speak to the workers on the front line to understand their fears and concerns, so that we all know the future of Department for Work and Pensions jobs on the Fylde coast, that the service is delivered efficiently to my constituents as a priority, and that employees of her Department are given the due care, attention and communication that they deserve?

Joan Humble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) on securing this important debate, which concerns my constituents and his. I also thank him and the Minister for their kindness in allowing me to contribute.
	Until recently, the Fylde coast had about 10,000 civil service jobs, which local people took pride in doing, whether they were in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health or the Veterans Agency, as Norcross is now the headquarters for war pensions administration. The Department for Work and Pensions is the principal employer. My constituents and those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre take their jobs seriously. They do important work, helping often vulnerable and disadvantaged people get the benefits that they need and deserve. That job is important to them, to our local economy and to Members throughout the country.
	As has been said, Warbreck house in my constituency is the national headquarters for the disability living allowance and provides the national helpline. I visit it on a regular basis and sit alongside the staff manning that helpline who take calls from all over the country and deal with and help people who are often distressed. Now, however, they must face uncertainty about whether they will have a job next week, next month, next year or in two years' time. They need to be part of the process of considering how the Department for Work and Pensions undertakes the job cuts required of it. Everybody, at every level, needs to be part of that discussion. Terry Moran, the chief executive of the Disability and Carers Service, is doing a good job trying to explain to staff who work at Warbreck house exactly what is required of them.
	Warbreck house has already had about 700 job cuts, but I have been assured in private as the local Member of Parliament and as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee that it will have no further head count reduction. In fact, Warbreck house has seen a transfer in of jobs from Sutton. We might be losing out under Gershon, but we are gaining under Lyons. Given the expertise of those on the Fylde coast who work for the civil service, surely if jobs are to be relocated, they should be relocated to Norcross, Warbreck house and the other establishments whose staff enjoy working for the civil service and the Department for Work and Pensions and do a very good job for it. I therefore hope that, as some jobs are lost and as new information technology systems and methods of working are introduced, the Minister will consider the opportunities for redeployment in those offices.
	Constituents of mine who work at Mexford house, which is part of the Pension Service, have recently raised concerns with me. Again, the irony is that jobs have been transferred from outsidein this case, I think, from Wrexhamto Mexford house. Again, we have well-trained staff doing a very good job; reassuring pensioners, explaining how they can claim pension credit, offering them advice and dealing with their problems. They are now wondering whether they will still be doing that job in two years' time.
	I know that the Minister cannot give us all the answers. She cannot tell me now that all my constituents' jobs will be there in two years' time. I ask her, however, to consider the managerial process for administering the period of change. Because of the uncertainty and the impact on staff morale to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that process must be managed very carefully. The staff must be part of the process, and so must the Public and Commercial Services Union. I too have regular meetings with the union, and I advise the hon. Gentlemanmy neighbourto meet its representatives. They find it difficult to negotiate on behalf of their members, because at Norcross in particular there are so many different units on the site with no coherent overall management. When the union is trying to advise its members on opportunities for redeployment on the Fylde coast, it is not always easy to establish with whom they should be liaising. In the case of a complex site like Norcross, it is important for the DWP to advise the local union and staff on whom they should be talking to, in order to minimise the uncertainty.
	I shall not say a great deal more, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say. Let me make two more points, however. Blackpool council also takes the matter seriously, and at a recent meeting passed a resolution expressing its concern about civil service job losses. The council is trying to revitalise the town with large amounts of investment. There are hopes of regeneration, and of new jobs. Given the importance of civil service jobs and of DWP jobs in particular, the council wants some reassurances.
	My final message to the Minister is that the staff who work for the DWP in my constituency and that of my neighbour are not cardboard cut-out bowler-hatted gentlemen; they are ordinary, decent, hard-working people. They are my constituents, and my neighbour's constituents. They want the Minister to listen, and they want to go on doing their job. They do an excellent job. I hope that the Minister will compliment them on their hard work in this vital area, that she will listen to their genuine concerns, that she will consult them, and that she will ensure that the management liaise with them and offer them reassurance to raise their morale, so that they can do their job even better than they are doing it now.

Anne McGuire: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) on securing the debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for her contribution. I appreciate that they both consider the issue important not just to those who work for the DWP at Norcross and on the Fylde coast, but to the whole community. My hon. Friend made that clear when she spoke of the local authority's concerns.
	I am pleased to have an opportunity to reassure both Members. I hope to present a wider picture of the Department's efficiency programme. We have a vision for the Departmenta vision of a modern organisation delivering a first-class service to clients throughout the community. I hope that both Members share that vision. Changes will be needed to make it a reality. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have invested a significant amount of public money in new information technology and infrastructure systems. We aim to centralise much of our benefit processing, streamline our delivery operations and cut wasteful bureaucracy in all parts of the Department. Again, I trust that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will support that.
	We are, in fact, transforming the way in which the Department does its business. It is not an easy challenge, but we are determined to succeed. The modern, more efficient organisation that we are putting in place will, by design, need fewer staff. Indeed, our efficiency plans are based on a reduction of 30,000 staff between March 2004 and 2008. We are already almost halfway towards achieving that target. The reductions so far have been managed by controlling recruitment, redeploying surplus staff to vacancies, natural turnover and a limited number of managed voluntary releases.
	To manage that major programme of change, and especially to handle properly its impact on people's lives, we have put in place a set of work force policies and processes and have established regional and national governance arrangements, managed by senior officials. The Department is playing a major role in initiatives put in place by the Cabinet Office to support the wider efficiency programme across Government, which, again, my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman would support.
	Let me be clear: this programme is about establishing a service fit for the 21st century, not about cutting jobs for the sake of it. It is about refocusing our efforts on our clients' needs, not on managing wasteful and outdated processes and systems. We have, under our Gershon efficiency plans, a target of moving 10,000 people to front-line activity by 2008, and I am pleased to report that we have already made progress in moving more than 4,000 people to customer-facing work.
	Of course, I understand that at times of major change staff will be concerned about jobs and their career prospects. We all accept that that is a natural reaction to change. However, our current plans still forecast departmental staffing of around 100,000 people nationwide. The Department is, and will continue to be, a major employer, offering good and worthwhile jobs to its staff.

Ben Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: I was just about to come specifically to the Fylde area, but felt it important to put the subject in its wider context. I shall turn now to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, and those of my hon. Friend.
	The Department and its predecessors has been a major employer in the Fylde area for more than 50 years. We depend heavily on the skills, knowledge and hard work of staff from across the area and from further afield across north-west England. We employ more than 6,000 staff in the area, who are engaged in a vast range of work at a number of sites. More than a fifth of the Department's staff are based in the north-west regionwell over 20,000 staff in all. In addition to our direct, customer-facing outlets, such as jobcentres, the Fylde area is a strategic centre for the Department, from which we run many key operations, including the Disability and Carers Service units at Norcross and Warbreck Hill, where the agency employs around 3,000 staffabout 50 per cent. of its total staff.
	We also operate a major Jobcentre Plus contact centre at Blackpool. Many of the Department's essential corporate financial service functions are also managed from sites in the Fylde area.
	The scale and size of our operation in the area and our determination to improve efficiency across all our operations are bound to have some impact on staffing levels. I can, however, categorically reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood that stories in the local press of mass redundancies and wholesale closures are wholly misleading. Furthermore, I must say that the stories have caused unnecessary worry to our staff and the wider community. Likewise, speculation in the media about the Department moving work overseas has no basis in reality. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman. The Department has absolutely no plans to move jobs overseas, and I am pleased to be able to put that on record. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like me, want to deal with facts, not rumours.
	At times of change, it is more important than ever to be straight and open with staff as plans are developed, as both hon. Members who have contributed tonight have said. Let me reiterate that the Department is a major employer in Fylde and plans to be so in the future, with a significant proportion of our work force based in the area. Indeed, as my hon. Friend remarked, we have recently moved 260 additional posts into the Disability and Carers Service at Warbreck house from Sutton in London, as part of our plans for relocating work from London and the south-east under the Lyons review. I am sure that hon. Members, especially the hon. Gentleman, will welcome that move as much as I do.
	The Disability and Carers Service employed more staff in Fylde by the end of December last year than it did in April. Standards are improving, as was shown by the fact that in September the DCS helpline received external accreditation to the Contact Centre Association, the professional body for assessing standards of excellence. It was therefore a serious disappointment to see a headline in the local newspaper suggesting that 93 per cent. of calls went unanswered. That was not the reality of the service that we provided. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will want to congratulate the staff on achieving that accreditation.
	We are also running a number of voluntary early retirement and early severance schemes across the country, where they can be shown to offer value for money. So far, some 90 staff have left our Fylde offices under the schemes, with some 250 further releases planned over the next few months. It is important to point out that, although we are well into delivering on our efficiency challenge, we have avoided any compulsory redundancies in the Fylde area, which demonstrates our commitment to staff. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will take every action necessary to avoid compulsory redundancies in the future.
	It is not just in staffing where we are looking to modernise. Our estate has grown organicallyas the hon. Gentleman highlightedoften as a result of the machinery of government changes and restructuring within the Department's predecessor organisations. We cannot expect to make the degree of change we have to make without ensuring that our estate meets requirements. That would risk wasting taxpayers' money on buildings that we do not need. We are therefore looking closely at our future estate strategy to ensure that we are running our end-to-end operations efficiently. It is singularly unhelpful to link issues of sensible estate rationalisation with the number of redundancies.
	We shall need to consider a range of options for where work is done and the best type of estate to use. However, before we introduce any changes, we will talk to our staff and their trade unions. In spite of the comments made during the debate, our managers have a good record in managing change, and in dealing sensitively with the legitimate and understandable concerns of staff.
	We are managing the transformation programme in a joined-up way across all the Department's businesses. Our business managers are working closely together to ensure that as many staff as possible who become surplus in one unit can be redeployed in new work in another. Indeed, we have redeployed more than 225 staff over the past 18 months who had become surplus at our main Fylde sites, including Norcross, Peel Park and Warbreck house at Blackpool and Lytham St. Annes.
	The Government's aim is to bring about a leaner, more focused organisation that delivers the services people need. Our staff are key in delivering that change; they deal with the most disadvantaged people in our community, often at particularly stressful times of lifeunemployment, sickness or bereavement. It is through their hard work at places such as Fylde and elsewhere that we will achieve the ambitious aims that we have set ourselves.
	I regret that the unfounded speculation about our cutting 2,000 jobs in the area has caused so much anxiety and concern to our excellent staff in the area, and I hope that I have reassured both the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood.
	The motion have been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.